1 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES REVIEW 

+ + + + + 

WEDNESDAY 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

+ + + + + 

The Work Group convened in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Wanda Munn, Chair, 

presiding.

PRESENT: 

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member*

MARK GRIFFON, Member*

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ROBERT ANIGSTEIN, SC&A*

TERRIE BARRIE, ANWAG*

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A*

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU Team*

ROBERT BURNS, ORAU Team*

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS*

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A*

STEVE MARSCHKE, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

JIM NETON, DCAS*

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A*

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team*

SCOTT SIEBERT, DCAS*

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU Team*

WILLIAM THURBER, SC&A*

BRANT ULSH, DCAS 

*Participating via telephone 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
3 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

Call to order 5 

Roll call 5 

Status Report on Database Improvements 9 

Since Last Meeting 

PER-9 and PER-12 Discussion 28 

PER-9 28 

PER-12 74 

OTIB-49-01 and -02, Result of Tech 77 

Talk re Pu Retained in Lung 

OTIB-54, Reply to NIOSH Responses 79 

No. 14 87 

No. 15 118 

No. 16 120 

No. 17, 18, and 19 123 

No. 20 and 21 124 

No. 22 130 

No. 23 131 

No. 24, 25, and 26 132 

OCAS-TIB-13, Review Status of Issues 135 

No. 1 and 2 137 

No. 3 137 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
4 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

No. 4, 5 and 6 149 

 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED) 

Overarching Issues List and Discussion 178 

Status of OTIB-70 - 15 Issues, Priority 194 

- Carryover 

Finding 1 198 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 9:04 a.m. 

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone 

4 in the room and on the phones. This is the 

5 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

6 the Procedures Subcommittee. 

7 I'm Ted Katz. I'm the Designated 

8 Federal Official of the Advisory Board. We're 

9 going to begin with roll call, beginning with 

10 Board Members in the room, with the Chair. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board 

12 Member and Chair of the Subcommittee on 

13 Procedure Reviews. 

14 MEMBER LEMEN: Richard Lemen, Board 

15 Member. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, Board 

17 Member. 

18 MR. KATZ: And do we have any Board 

19 Members on the line? 

20 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, Ted, this is 

21 Mike. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. KATZ: Hi, Mike. You sound a 

2 little bit croaky. 

3 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I'm under the 

4 weather. 

5 MR. KATZ: Oh, I'm sorry. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you for staying 

7 home. 

8 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. It sounds 

9 painful. 

10 Very good. And NIOSH/ORAU team in 

11 the room? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld from 

13 DCAS. 

14 DR. ULSH: Brant Ulsh from DCAS. 

15 MR. KATZ: NIOSH/ORAU team on the 

16 line? 

17 MS. THOMAS: Elyse Thomas, ORAU. 

18 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, ORAU 

19 team. 

20 MR. KATZ: Welcome, both of you. 

21 SC&A team in the room? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke, 

2 SC&A. 

3 MR. KATZ: SC&A team on the line? 

4 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 

5 DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow, SC&A. 

6 DR. H. BEHLING: Hans Behling, 

7 SC&A. 

8 MS. K. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, 

9 SC&A. 

10 MR. KATZ: Welcome all of you. 

11 We do not have any federal 

12 officials or contractors with us in the room. 

13 But how about on the line? 

14 MS. LIN: This is Jenny with HHS. 

15 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Jenny. 

16 Any other feds or contractors to 

17 the feds? 

18 (No response.) 

19 Okay. And there are no members of 

20 the public in the room. Any members of the 

21 public on the line? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie Barrie 

2 with ANWAG. 

3 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Terrie. 

4 MS. BARRIE: Good morning. 

5 MR. KATZ: Good morning. 

6 Very good. Wanda, it's your 

7 agenda. 

8 Please let me just remind folks on 

9 the line to mute your phones. Use *6 if you 

10 don't have a mute button and *6 again to 

11 unmute your phone when you want to speak to 

12 the group. Thank you. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Does everyone here and 

14 on board with us have a copy of the agenda 

15 that I submitted? If anyone does not, please 

16 tell me so. 

17 MR. KATZ: It should be posted as 

18 well on the website. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Then we will assume 

20 that this is your opportunity to let me know 

21 if there is any correction, addition, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

9 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 subtraction that needs to be made to that 

2 agenda, to the best of your knowledge. If 

3 not, we will follow that as we go through the 

4 day. 

5 We want to remain flexible so that 

6 if we have the -- need some extra people on 

7 board, we'll try to accommodate any changes of 

8 that sort. 

9 The only notification that I've had 

10 of any specific -- there has been a request 

11 for a fairly time-certain for the OTIB-70 

12 coverage, which we will take up right after 

13 lunch. If that's not satisfactory with 

14 everybody, I need to hear that now. 

15 Otherwise, it looks like we're 

16 ready to go. Our first item on our agenda is 

17 the status report on where we are with the 

18 database. 

19 We -- left this situation in 

20 October such that we were hoping that the 

21 folks who were working with the software, the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

10 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 database, were going to do several things for 

2 us. We had talked about adding one column to 

3 the display that we have, and we had talked 

4 about a couple of other items that would make 

5 it a little easier for the user to have access 

6 to the material that they wanted, but I have 

7 no knowledge of what has transpired in that 

8 two-month period. I am hoping that Steve 

9 Marschke has been in touch with all those 

10 folks and is going to tell us what has 

11 happened, what we can expect new with the 

12 database. 

13 How are we doing, Steve? 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm not sure how 

15 we're doing, Wanda, to tell you the truth. 

16 Right after the last meeting in October, we 

17 got an email, I think from Tom, and he 

18 identified 10 items that they were going to 

19 work on updating. And I responded to that 

20 email myself with four additional items that I 

21 thought needed to be incorporated. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

11 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 I don't know if we want to go 

2 through these, but some of them have been 

3 incorporated; some of them have not been 

4 incorporated. Let's leave it at that. I 

5 don't think any of the issues that I was 

6 asking for have been incorporated. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So we don't 

8 have the added column yet for our comments. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. I tried to -

10 - you know, in preparation for the meeting, I 

11 don't use the database every day, but in 

12 preparation for the meeting I was trying to 

13 exercise the database, and I did run into some 

14 problems which, to some extent, put us further 

15 behind than we were in October. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, dear. Before we 

17 go any further with that, I have a question. 

18 I was remiss in not paying attention to what 

19 we were doing when Ted was going through our 

20 who's here and who isn't list. Do we have any 

21 of our IT experts on line who can receive any 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 of these information data points that we're 

2 about to discuss? 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we didn't have 

4 them, you know, we didn't tell them --

5 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, all right. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, at some 

7 point, I can call them in. I can call them. 

8 You know, they'll be coming on cold. To me, 

9 I've always thought that we would be better 

10 served to have Steve and us and the TST folks 

11 get together and do this design --

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and spend a 

14 couple of days doing that. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: I had hoped that would 

16 occur. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we thought, 

18 in the interim between the last meeting and 

19 this, we thought that several of those things 

20 were getting done. As Steve told me, the 

21 number of things that were there in October 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

13 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 are not there now, right? 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: A couple of them, 

3 yes. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: A couple. When 

6 you're writing computer software, sometimes 

7 when you write in a new enhancement, you break 

8 things that were working before. And if you 

9 don't go through and actually test them 

10 thoroughly, you don't know that you've broken 

11 these things. And I think that's probably 

12 what has happened here in at least some of the 

13 instances or one of the instances. 

14 The reason why I say we lost ground 

15 is primarily for two reasons. And if you 

16 want, I can go over those two reasons. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well, let me ask this 

18 question. Since it seems pertinent to me that 

19 the folks who are actually going to be doing 

20 the changes to the software hear what our 

21 concerns are as we go through, is there any 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

14 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 possibility that we could ask them to come on 

2 a little later this morning, and that we 

3 postpone this discussion until they do? We 

4 can move through some of the other items. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Well, it 

6 would be probably easier if he were down here. 

7 So let me see if Tom can come down. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: What's the feeling of 

9 the rest of the group? I would very much 

10 personally like to have the folks who are on 

11 the ground doing the work on this available to 

12 us when we're carrying on this discussion. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is it something we 

14 can actually do here, or do you actually need 

15 to do what Stu described and get together 

16 later? What can we do if they come down? 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: What we can do, if 

18 they come here, is that we could run through 

19 some operability. We could show on various 

20 screens on the database what it is we want to 

21 accomplish. Now, apparently, we haven't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

15 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 installed everything that we had collected for 

2 October, which I didn't know. So, apparently, 

3 that's not done yet. 

4 So, I mean, there are those things 

5 that could be done first or we can have them 

6 come down here, run through what we think, you 

7 know, showing them on the screen what we would 

8 like to see happen or what we would like to 

9 see various screens look like, and have them 

10 make those notes and go back and do it. We're 

11 still going to need that meeting. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, you're still 

13 going to need the meeting. As I see it, we 

14 have three options. We can either do what I 

15 just suggested here or we can again postpone 

16 this with the assurance that those offsite 

17 meetings are going to occur and that we're 

18 going to have the primary parties sit down and 

19 work through our needs one by one. Or we can 

20 postpone this until our next face-to-face 

21 meeting and do this in meeting with all of us 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

16 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 present. 

2 Ted? 

3 MR. KATZ: I mean I would suggest, 

4 I really don't think it's a good use of the 

5 full Work Group's time to be struggling with 

6 what's entirely really a technical matter 

7 because Steve certainly knows the 

8 functionality that's needed by the Work Group 

9 as well as anyone. 

10 So, I mean, I would really think it 

11 would be a better use of resources for Steve 

12 to work with the people directly to get it 

13 done, whatever that takes, than to use 

14 Subcommittee time on, again, this technical 

15 matter. At this point, they have had plenty 

16 of feedback from the Subcommittee as a whole 

17 in terms of functionality, but Steve knows it 

18 all. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: I mean the thing is 

20 it's not a question of new functionality --

21 functions that have to be added to the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

17 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 database. It's a question of we have given 

2 them a list of things that we need. Things 

3 that were there in October are no longer 

4 there. Things that were working in October 

5 are no longer working. It's basically a 

6 question of how do you implement and beta test 

7 this thing before it's released for use. 

8 MR. KATZ: Right, and I appreciate 

9 that, Steve. I'm just saying you're the one 

10 who's finding all the problems because, for 

11 whatever reason, they're not getting to these 

12 problems; they're not realizing they have 

13 these problems, whatever. And I would just 

14 say you work with them and get it done. 

15 I understand that they have been 

16 given instructions, and so on, but we're not 

17 getting there. And so much time is going by 

18 at this point. I think you just sit down and 

19 you get it done together. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: I certainly agree with 

21 what you're saying, Ted. My concern is the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

18 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 forcing function to see that that happens 

2 because I thought our meeting last October had 

3 provided that forcing function. That's why I 

4 had the item on here to reassure us that the 

5 forcing function had been successful. 

6 Clearly, it hasn't been. 

7 And so what I'm really groping for 

8 here is how can we assure that what we want to 

9 have happen is going to happen between now and 

10 the next time. Because, as Ted points out, 

11 we've been dealing with this now for many 

12 months. Many moons have passed. And we would 

13 really like to get this past the point where 

14 it's looking good but not finished yet. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, if I were to 

16 suggest a path forward, I would suggest that 

17 NIOSH or the IT people basically go through 

18 and implement the laundry list of things that 

19 they have to do that is outstanding on the 

20 table now. And when they think they have it 

21 done, then I come down and beta test it, as 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

19 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 opposed to coming down now and giving them 

2 another laundry list of things to do. 

3 And maybe I come down a week before 

4 the next scheduled Subcommittee meeting --

5 MR. KATZ: No, I would say get this 

6 done way before then. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: No, a week is not 

8 really enough. 

9 MR. KATZ: That's what I mean. You 

10 can speak with those folks. You can make 

11 arrangements. You can have a schedule for 

12 this. But really we don't want to wait until 

13 the next Subcommittee meeting. 

14 DR. ULSH: No. Because, I mean, if 

15 you remember after the last meeting, we had a 

16 laundry list of things that were going to be 

17 accomplished, and, well, I mean those were 

18 rolled out in DCTA, but, apparently, in the 

19 process it broke some other things. 

20 I really think that what we need to 

21 do is get Steve in town as quickly as possible 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

20 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 and do it real-time. You say, "Make this 

2 change." Tom will sit there and make the 

3 change. We'll go through it. We'll find 

4 other issues. We'll take care of those on the 

5 spot. 

6 MR. KATZ: And that's fine. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. I can come 

8 down, you know -- I can't stay down this time, 

9 but I can come down next week or in the next 

10 couple of weeks sometime. 

11 MR. KATZ: That sounds good. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Let's do establish a 

13 time-certain. Let's say that, by the 21st of 

14 this month, you will have met face-to-face 

15 with the folks who are the implementers and 

16 have spent a day working through what needs to 

17 be done. And if there is anything left over 

18 that they need to do to make it work the way 

19 we want it to work, that you will verify a 

20 week later that what we need has transpired. 

21 All right? Is that a reasonable thing? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. ULSH: Steve, do you think two 

2 days would be appropriate? 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: I have no idea. 

4 Because, basically, when I come down first, I 

5 am going to give you a laundry list of things 

6 to do, and then I don't know what I'm going to 

7 be doing until they attempt to implement those 

8 laundry lists of things. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I think, really, 

10 let's you and me meet with TST tomorrow about 

11 it. I'm sending a note to Tom now saying we 

12 need to meet tomorrow. And we're going to go 

13 through the laundry list, and we're going to 

14 get from Tom what's been done on all that 

15 stuff and see. 

16 And I don't know if he understood 

17 what was intended or not. You know, I don't 

18 know. Maybe that's part of the problem. So, 

19 maybe we can understand that more than he 

20 because we have been dealing with the 

21 database. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

22 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 And so, we'll do that first. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: And then we'll see 

4 if Tom has any more of those things that he 

5 thinks are not done or not working. 

6 I also sent a note first to Tom 

7 because Steve said there was some stuff 

8 working in October that's not working today. 

9 I sent that to Tom when I got in this morning, 

10 that email to Tom this morning saying, "Hey, 

11 have you got any explanation for why these 

12 things aren't working?" 

13 But we'll meet with Tom tomorrow. 

14 And then after that meeting, we will know 

15 whether it makes sense to bring Steve down 

16 next week or to do some other work before we 

17 bring Steve down. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Very simple, if you'll 

19 keep me apprised of how that's going? And for 

20 the time being, then, given that information, 

21 Steve, if you'll briefly run through where we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

23 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 are with it and what we're going to have to 

2 work with today then? We don't need the 

3 detail that I had hoped for originally 

4 because, clearly, we don't have the responses 

5 we really wanted. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, one of the 

7 things we don't have the capability of, one of 

8 the capabilities that we lost was if you 

9 remember in the October version, we had an 

10 option up here on this line here to generate 

11 what was called an SC&A summary table. That 

12 has disappeared. So, right now, there's no 

13 way to get a tally as to how many issues are 

14 in the database, which ones are open, closed, 

15 in abeyance, or so on and so forth. 

16 And so, I did not send out --

17 usually I send out a bar chart before these 

18 meetings giving us the status. That was not 

19 sent out this time because there was no way to 

20 get that information out of the database. So 

21 that's one of the capabilities that was lost. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

24 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I discovered that 

2 last night when I was trying to check it 

3 myself. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: The other thing 

5 which I -- the other reason why I think I say 

6 we have lost ground is -- well, this is one of 

7 the things that was implemented -- this is one 

8 of the positive things that was implemented. 

9 When you click on a document title, we asked 

10 them to change it so we go directly to the 

11 issue screen. And this is what now occurs. 

12 So that's one of the positive things. 

13 And this I can't test, but I don't 

14 want to test it because if I test it or 

15 demonstrate it, I might mess up the database. 

16 So I don't want to do that. But when you 

17 click on the Add Response, which you can see 

18 here is underlined indicating that it is a 

19 live feature. When you click on it, you get 

20 the little finger, hand with a finger, 

21 indicating that it's a live feature. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

25 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 So you can click on that, add a 

2 response to one of these issues. And then 

3 when you come back and say, okay, I'm done 

4 with that response, you come back to this 

5 screen. The Add Response column, when you 

6 come back, the Add Response column is no 

7 longer live. In October, it was live. When 

8 you added one response, you came back to this 

9 screen; you were able to add additional 

10 responses. 

11 When I tried to do this when I was 

12 implementing the OTIB-70 SC&A responses, I 

13 found that this was no longer a feature. So 

14 what you did, you came to this screen the 

15 second time, you had to go out, back to the 

16 main screen, and then back in. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: No, no, we don't want 

18 that. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: And so, I mean, that 

20 was the workaround. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

26 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. MARSCHKE: So I don't know 

2 what's going to happen when we try on the fly 

3 to change status. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Let them do it. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, adding 

6 responses, that's why -- so those two features 

7 are why I say we lost ground from October to 

8 today. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: So that's it in a 

11 nutshell. We still don't have the capability, 

12 as far as I can tell, of making a PDF file or 

13 a hard copy of any of this information. So 

14 the way SC&A works anyway is we have a bunch 

15 of scientists/engineers who are experts in 

16 each one of these areas. They're not 

17 necessarily experts in the database. So I 

18 basically have the interface with the database 

19 for everyone. 

20 So what I like to do is make a 

21 file, send it to the experts. "This is the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 current status. What is your reply?" But 

2 without the capability of making a PDF file or 

3 a hard copy or something, I'm kind of stuck. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: You can't do it. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, what I have to 

6 do is, basically, manually do a 

7 block/copy/paste into a Word file and then 

8 send the Word file to them. So there is a 

9 workaround, but it's not very convenient. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: It's the same 

11 situation we have when we actually transfer to 

12 another Work Group or another Subcommittee. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, you're going to 

14 have the same problem. You're not going to be 

15 able to make a PDF file. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: And that's a feature 

18 that was lost from the Access database. In 

19 the Access database, we were able to do that; 

20 in this database we're not. 

21 So those are some of the main 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 problems that I'm having with it and when I 

2 try to use it. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Could we prevail upon 

4 you to at the close of this meeting put those 

5 specific items into a brief email and send 

6 them to Stu --

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: -- and Brant, so that 

9 they will be able to relay them to the folks 

10 that they're going to be talking to tomorrow? 

11 And they can be very clear about what we've 

12 got and what we don't have and --

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I can do that 

14 probably tomorrow morning when I get back to 

15 my office. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: That would be great if 

17 you could. Okay. Thank you. 

18 MR. KATZ: Let me just note I got 

19 an email; Mark Griffon is on the line, for the 

20 record. So he is now with the Subcommittee. 

21 And, Dick, if you could pull away 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 from the table some with the phone? Mark's 

2 having a hard time hearing because of your 

3 conversation with the tech folks. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Good morning, Mark. 

5 Welcome. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Good morning, 

7 everybody. Sorry I was late. 

8 MR. KATZ: Welcome here. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: That's quite all 

10 right. You get one forgiven. 

11 Let's move on to PER-9 and PER-12 

12 discussion. As I understand it --

13 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm back. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Thank you, 

15 Dick. 

16 At our last meeting, we had asked 

17 that this item be moved up early in our 

18 deliberations today because we ran out of time 

19 last time, and we also did not have the SC&A 

20 folks available, the experts available, to 

21 address what we wanted to address. And we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

30 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 were going to have a specific discussion on 

2 the Hodgkin's/non-Hodgkin's lymphoma issues, 

3 and perhaps other things. I don't think we 

4 got much further than that in our discussions 

5 last time. 

6 John, are you with us? 

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'm here. And 

8 more importantly, Hans Behling is with us. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. 

10 DR. MAURO: Who did the work on the 

11 PER review. 

12 But if I recall, when we last 

13 spoke, Dr. Lemen had some, what I would call, 

14 higher-level questions regarding there is the 

15 issue, of course, of the PER and our review of 

16 some of the issues related to that. But there 

17 were some other questions about designation of 

18 that particular cancer as a radiogenic cancer. 

19 Am I recalling correctly? Was that something 

20 that we were about to talk about? 

21 MEMBER LEMEN: That's correct. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

31 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. MAURO: Yes, and I think that 

2 went more to NIOSH. Now, of course, we're 

3 prepared to talk about the PER work we did, 

4 but I do recall there was this higher-level 

5 question that Dr. Lemen raised. 

6 MEMBER LEMEN: There was a couple 

7 of things that I had raised, but I thought for 

8 this discussion we do need the NIOSH people to 

9 start out first. 

10 Before we do that, though, John, 

11 you all had made a report to the Board on 

12 that, correct? 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, we reported on the 

14 PER related to thoracic lymphoma. 

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Right. 

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, and it went into 

17 issues related to Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's, 

18 and how you go about doing the dose 

19 reconstruction, and the changes that were made 

20 to NIOSH's procedures for dealing with using a 

21 revised protocol. And Hans did a review of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

32 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 that work. 

2 So, yes, we are engaged in matters 

3 related to thpse types of lymphomas, but I 

4 think that there was some question, which is 

5 why it is, in fact, listed as a radiogenic 

6 cancer. And this is not something I believe 

7 we can speak to. I'm not sure if Hans can, 

8 but it's not something we normally would look 

9 at. 

10 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, once you did 

11 the report, and then it went back to NIOSH, 

12 NIOSH wrote another report saying that they 

13 strongly objected to your analysis, as I 

14 recall. Is that correct? 

15 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

16 MEMBER LEMEN: Is that correct? 

17 DR. MAURO: Hans, why don't you --

18 it sounds like we're going to get into our 

19 report first, and that's fine. 

20 MEMBER LEMEN: I think we should 

21 get into the report first. But I think the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

33 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 sequence of events are that once your report 

2 was written, it went back to NIOSH. NIOSH 

3 objected to your report. 

4 I guess the place we should start 

5 is with the NIOSH person. 

6 DR. ULSH: That would probably be 

7 me. Just to briefly summarize from the 

8 beginning because we have gone over this a few 

9 times, this all started with some questions 

10 about the appropriate target organs that we 

11 assign when we're doing a dose reconstruction 

12 for lymphoma. And there are a lot of ways to 

13 cut and slice the box that is lymphomas. The 

14 biggest way, I guess, is between Hodgkin's 

15 lymphoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. 

16 And you're right, I mean, John, 

17 there are some questions, I guess, that some 

18 people have about the radiogenicity of 

19 lymphoma, but that's not really the issue that 

20 we were dealing with here. I mean we treat it 

21 as if it is a radiogenic cancer, and there's a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

34 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 risk model for lymphoma, both Hodgkin's and 

2 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. 

3 So it's not necessarily the 

4 radiogenicity that's the issue. It's where in 

5 the body does a lymphoma start? What organ 

6 should you calculate the radiation dose to 

7 when you do a dose reconstruction? 

8 So we had an original procedure in 

9 place. I don't recall now exactly how the 

10 questions came about. I think it was some 

11 discussions, informal discussions that I had 

12 with some folks during a meeting in D.C. 

13 But, anyway, we came back. We 

14 issued a TIB, a Technical Information 

15 Bulletin, on target organs. And basically, it 

16 treated Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 

17 differently. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are more 

18 of a systemic disease. They could originate 

19 anywhere in the body, and it's not clear 

20 where. So we picked the thoracic or 

21 extrathoracic lymph nodes because that is the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

35 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 most claimant-favorable choice. That results 

2 in the highest organ dose. 

3 On the other hand, we did not treat 

4 Hodgkin's lymphoma that way. And this is a 

5 point of, I would say, disagreement between 

6 SC&A and NIOSH. The heart of that 

7 disagreement, I think, is that we treat 

8 Hodgkin's as a localized disease. It starts 

9 in a particular lymph node and spreads to 

10 adjacent lymph nodes. 

11 And so we differentiated between 

12 that. We didn't pick the thoracic lymph nodes 

13 as a default. We picked whatever part of the 

14 body where the Hodgkin's lymphoma was 

15 detected. 

16 So that, I think, is the heart of 

17 the issue. And there's been a lot of 

18 iterations back and forth between NIOSH and 

19 SC&A on this. I think, although others will 

20 have to help refresh my memory on this, I 

21 think it was agreed by everybody that -- I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

36 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 mean there were some questions about how these 

2 things were diagnosed, how lymphomas were 

3 diagnosed in the past, and whether people had 

4 the ability to differentiate different types 

5 of lymphomas. 

6 And while there are some points of 

7 disagreement, I think everyone agreed that 

8 this was beyond NIOSH's purview. This is a 

9 DOL question in terms of assigning diagnoses 

10 and ICD codes, which we use when we figure out 

11 target organs. 

12 So there was some question about, I 

13 think, whether the Board wanted to pick this 

14 up because what would be the outcome of it? I 

15 mean, even if everyone agreed, which we don't 

16 yet, there's really not much NIOSH can do. 

17 It's not in our purview to do that. 

18 So that was one question that was 

19 on the table. So there was some debate about 

20 whether or not we should even be picking this 

21 up. But I think that that question might be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

37 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 the first one to be considered before we dive 

2 into the technical details. And both Hans and 

3 I are here. So, I mean, we could do that, 

4 if --

5 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick Lemen 

6 again. I would agree with that, and I think 

7 before we spend the time going into this in 

8 detail, we should make a decision about this. 

9 What does Hans have to say about what we were 

10 just saying? 

11 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, this is Hans 

12 Behling, SC&A. 

13 I think Brant sort of summarized 

14 the key issues here. But central to the 

15 concerns that I had was the fact that non16 Hodgkin's lymphoma in the earlier days was 

17 really something that had traditionally been 

18 classified according to the morphology that's 

19 involved, a simple light microscope. 

20 And up to perhaps the 1980 

21 timeframe, or thereabouts, that was the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

38 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 principal method by which non-Hodgkin's 

2 lymphoma was classified as a cancer. 

3 Obviously, since that time, there have been 

4 major, major changes in various areas. 

5 Obviously, key to those changes were 

6 immunological tests that involved monoclonal 

7 antibodies, also flow cytometry that now was 

8 able to, in very easy and definitive ways, 

9 define subgroups of lymphocytes that might be 

10 involved in understanding what cell types were 

11 involved in lymphoma. And obviously, those 

12 things were only available to oncologists and 

13 pathologists in more recent times. 

14 So the concern that I had was that 

15 those people who might have been diagnosed 

16 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, especially non17 Hodgkin's lymphoma in the early days, let's 

18 say prior to 1980, may have had a diagnosis 

19 that, by today's standards, would be 

20 questioned. And to what extent can we at this 

21 point go back and rectify those limitations or 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 deficiencies in doing a dose reconstruction? 

2 So that was really the central issue that I 

3 had. 

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay. As I recall, 

5 that involved, NIOSH's count, some 4,000 

6 different -- didn't you, if you want back and 

7 redid dose reconstruction, wasn't there a 

8 large number that was involved in that, as I 

9 recall? 

10 DR. ULSH: Well, this issue was 

11 housed in the context of a PER that we did. 

12 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes. 

13 DR. ULSH: A Program Evaluation 

14 Report. 

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Right, I read that. 

16 DR. ULSH: We changed the TIB. 

17 Then that changed, in some cases, which target 

18 organ needed to be applied. So when that 

19 happens, we issue a Program Evaluation Report. 

20 MEMBER LEMEN: Right. 

21 DR. ULSH: We go back and look at 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

40 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 past dose reconstructions that we have done. 

2 I don't know off the top of my head, Dick, how 

3 many that involved. 

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, be that as it 

5 may, if we're coming to -- what's your 

6 response to what Hans just said? 

7 DR. ULSH: Well, are we going to 

8 go -- that's diving into the --

9 DR. H. BEHLING: I have to say, 

10 looking back at this point in time, I'm not 

11 sure we really can do anything about it 

12 because, obviously, the medical limitations 

13 that existed in that timeframe may or may not 

14 be something that we can do anything about. 

15 As I said, the concern I have is 

16 that, when we talk about -- for instance, one 

17 of my nephews is an oncologist, and he is 

18 extremely familiar with flow cytometry 

19 measurements, which were only recently 

20 available, that allows a very definitive 

21 understanding of these very subsets of thymusNEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

41 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 derived lymphocytes, bone-marrow-derived 

2 lymphoctyes, natural killer cells. All these 

3 things that we today take for granted, these 

4 didn't exist years ago. 

5 So the question is to what extent 

6 can we take a diagnostic measurement of a 

7 lymphoma that was done in the seventies or 

8 even early eighties and realize that that 

9 necessarily is the correct diagnosis? 

10 CHAIR MUNN: And the technical 

11 issues notwithstanding, we in prior 

12 discussions of this, which have been 

13 extensive, came to the conclusion repeatedly 

14 that, in any case, it is the Department of 

15 Labor decision to make and outside our 

16 purview. 

17 I guess my question at this 

18 juncture is whether there is any change to 

19 that previous consensus that we had that it 

20 was a Department of Labor issue and, 

21 regardless of what the technical question may 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

42 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 present, we, nevertheless, can't answer it 

2 because it is a decision that the Department 

3 of Labor has to make. 

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, if it's a 

5 decision the Department of Labor has to make, 

6 why don't we -- have we sent it back to the 

7 Department of Labor? 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, that was, I 

9 think, one of the questions, one of the things 

10 that we talked about at one of the previous 

11 meetings is do we want to send something back 

12 to the Department of Labor. And, then, if we 

13 decided that we did want to send something 

14 back to the Department of Labor, then we 

15 should have a unified position of what it is 

16 we're going to be sending back. 

17 And then we would have to work out 

18 between NIOSH and SC&A, would have to decide, 

19 well, what is that unified position. As I 

20 recall, it was only if we were basically -- if 

21 we're going to keep it within NIOSH and the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

43 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Subcommittee, then we're going to basically 

2 agree that it's beyond our scope of work, and 

3 there's nothing more for us to do with these 

4 two issues. 

5 If, on the other hand, we want to 

6 inform the Department of Labor that this issue 

7 exists, then we have to come to some kind of 

8 an understanding and formulate really what 

9 that issue is. 

10 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, it seems to me 

11 -- I'm sorry, Wanda. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Go ahead. 

13 MEMBER LEMEN: It seems to me that 

14 -- this issue has been going on long before I 

15 came on the Board. But it appears that what 

16 really needs to be done now is to get SC&A and 

17 NIOSH together and formulate a position and 

18 send it back to the Department of Labor. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I would like to 

20 offer something here. This is Stu Hinnefeld. 

21 The SEC portion of the statute, of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

44 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 the law that Congress wrote, distinguishes 

2 between non-Hodgkin's and Hodgkin's. 

3 MEMBER LEMEN: Right. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: It puts Hodgkin's 

5 out of the SEC Class. It puts non-Hodgkin's 

6 in. 

7 MEMBER LEMEN: Right. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: So this program 

9 started with that delineation. There is, 

10 according to the founders of the law, there is 

11 Hodgkin's leukemia -- or Hodgkin's lymphoma 

12 and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and they're 

13 separate. And the designations of such are 

14 sufficiently fine for Congress to say one is 

15 in and one is out. 

16 They didn't say Hodgkin's lymphoma 

17 before 1980 is in because of diagnosis 

18 questions. They just definitively said 

19 Hodgkin's is out; non-Hodgkin's in in. 

20 I think NIOSH is not in a position 

21 and has really no interest in going to the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

45 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Department of Labor and asking them to say, 

2 hey, do you want to make some sort of policy 

3 change about considering Hodgkin's disease 

4 diagnosed before some date based on these 

5 questions about the clarity of diagnosis, if, 

6 in fact, there is uniform agreement on that, 

7 when, in fact, Congress has already said, if 

8 it's Hodgkin's, it's out; if it's non9 Hodgkin's, it's in. They've already decided 

10 essentially. 

11 MEMBER LEMEN: But that was in 

12 nineteen -- in 2000 that they said that or 

13 1999. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, somewhere 

15 around there. 

16 MEMBER LEMEN: Whenever they were 

17 doing that. And there's been some interest in 

18 changing. 

19 Now Hodgkin's does not account for 

20 a lot of disease. I think there's 7,000 cases 

21 diagnosed in the U.S. every year, or something 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 in that neighborhood. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

3 MEMBER LEMEN: How many in 

4 Hodgkin's have even applied for compensation? 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, as far as 

6 claims that have a single diagnosis, I'm not 

7 sure if I can get that --

8 MEMBER LEMEN: We're not talking 

9 probably about a large number of people. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: It looks like, out 

11 of cancers that only have a single cancer --

12 this doesn't include multiple cancers -- there 

13 are a little over 1100 lymphoma and multiple 

14 myeloma cancers. 

15 MEMBER LEMEN: And how many of 

16 those came in -- did any come in as Hodgkin's? 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have that 

18 distinction here. We would have to run a 

19 query to figure out which ones are Hodgkin's 

20 and non-Hodgkin's. 

21 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, I guess the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 question is are there legitimate Hodgkin's 

2 cases that have not -- that have -- that would 

3 apply to being compensated since Congress made 

4 that distinct distinction back in 1999? 

5 DR. ULSH: I can say with certainty 

6 that we have received cases where the cancer 

7 diagnosed is Hodgkin's disease. 

8 MEMBER LEMEN: Right. 

9 DR. ULSH: I can guarantee you 

10 that. And it's somewhere less than 1100. 

11 MEMBER LEMEN: So you automatically 

12 just throw those out when you get them? 

13 DR. ULSH: No, we don't throw them 

14 out. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we do dose 

16 reconstruction. 

17 DR. ULSH: We do a dose 

18 reconstruction. But if those people come from 

19 a site where there's an SEC enacted, they are 

20 not included in the SEC based on that 

21 Hodgkin's diagnosis. They come to us as a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 non-SEC case, and we do a dose reconstruction 

2 on it. 

3 MEMBER LEMEN: And if you do a dose 

4 reconstruction and they qualify, do they get 

5 compensation? 

6 DR. ULSH: Yes, they do. 

7 MEMBER LEMEN: Even if they're a 

8 Hodgkin's? 

9 DR. ULSH: Yes. 

10 MEMBER LEMEN: Even though the 

11 Congress --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Congress only 

13 excluded it from the SEC Class. 

14 MEMBER LEMEN: From the SEC Class? 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: They didn't exclude 

16 it from the program. All the cancers --

17 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Every cancer except 

19 CLL is covered. 

20 MEMBER LEMEN: So I guess the 

21 question is should we include it in the SEC? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Is that what --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we don't have 

3 the authority to do that. That's absolutely a 

4 statutory question. 

5 DR. ULSH: No, the question on the 

6 table --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: That's not a 

8 question for Department of Labor. 

9 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, what is the 

10 question? 

11 DR. ULSH: The question on the 

12 table is when we do a dose reconstruction for 

13 Hodgkin's lymphoma, what target organs should 

14 we calculate a radiation dose --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no, actually, 

16 the question on the table is is there a date 

17 before which we should, even though the 

18 diagnosis comes over as Hodgkin's, we should 

19 consider it a non-Hodgkin's? That's the only 

20 logical question. 

21 And the Department of Labor would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

50 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 have to plan that. Because if they send us a 

2 Hodgkin's disease, they're going to expect a 

3 dose reconstruction for Hodgkin's disease. 

4 They're not going to expect a non-Hodgkin's. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: It's difficult to see 

6 how anyone can identify a date after which 

7 diagnoses are more accurate than they were 

8 prior to that time. These things don't occur 

9 magically on September the 1st of 1983. You 

10 know, they occur over a period of time, and 

11 diagnoses that occurred during that transition 

12 time are going to be questionable, no matter 

13 what. 

14 DR. ULSH: But I have to point out 

15 that there is disagreement between the NIOSH 

16 position and what Hans said earlier about this 

17 diagnosis issue. If you want to get into 

18 that, we can, but that's one of those 

19 technical issues. 

20 MEMBER LEMEN: But is it something 

21 that we should get into if we can't make any 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

51 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 changes? 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Well, and it seems 

3 beyond our capacity to be able to do that in 

4 any case. We have a situation where the only 

5 real problem is whether or not this small 

6 group of individuals can be included in an 

7 SEC. And that's established by law. So 

8 that's not our purview. 

9 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, you just said 

10 that -- Stu just said that can't be changed. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: No, that can't be 

12 changed. That's true. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we cannot change 

14 --

15 CHAIR MUNN: That's true, but these 

16 people are not excluded from being considered 

17 for compensation. They're just excluded from 

18 the SEC. 

19 MEMBER LEMEN: So the question is, 

20 between SC&A and NIOSH, what is the target 

21 organ that you start with with the Hodgkin's, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

52 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 is that correct? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Hodgkin's, the 

3 target organ for Hodgkin's is the region of 

4 the body --

5 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, you have your 

6 opinion; SC&A has a different opinion. Is 

7 that correct? 

8 DR. ULSH: I think that's correct. 

9 I would agree with that. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: The ultimate 

11 outcome, I believe, is different. I think the 

12 actual disagreement is on whether we should 

13 consider Hodgkin's a true -- that every 

14 Hodgkin's diagnosis is actually a Hodgkin's 

15 disease, or whether some of them should be 

16 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Now the target organs 

17 are different. So it comes down to that --

18 MEMBER LEMEN: It seems to me that 

19 we're confused on what we're trying to do. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I clearly am. 

21 (Laughter.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

53 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. KATZ: You're clear, actually, 

2 Stu, on what --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I thought I knew 

4 what we were trying to do. We were trying to 

5 decide whether --

6 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, you and Brant 

7 are not on the same page. 

8 DR. ULSH: No, we are. 

9 (Laughter.) 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: What we're trying 

11 to decide -- now it is a fact that a non12 Hodgkin's lymphoma has a different target 

13 organ for dose reconstruction than Hodgkin's 

14 disease. The non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is far 

15 more likely to produce a compensable outcome 

16 than a Hodgkin's disease target organ. That 

17 is true. 

18 Okay. So the ultimate outcome is 

19 what is the target organ? But that depends on 

20 the decision of what's the diagnosis of the 

21 cancer? Unless someone has the opinion that a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

54 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Hodgkin's disease that is truly a Hodgkin's 

2 disease, you know, a recently-diagnosed one, 

3 so we're confident it's Hodgkin's disease, is 

4 our target organ for that incorrect? 

5 That would be a question that could 

6 be within the purview of this group. I don't 

7 have an opinion. 

8 MR. KATZ: I mean there are a 

9 couple of options. One is to say we have too 

10 much work to do, and this is not our central 

11 work here, and to move on. Another option is 

12 to spend resources, or whatever, to try to get 

13 a unified perspective on this because it does 

14 affect how you do dose reconstructions. 

15 And another is to send a missive to 

16 DOL that says, "Look, we've discussed this 

17 issue at the Board or Subcommittee level. We 

18 don't have any consensus here, but, DOL, you 

19 may want to look into this question," without 

20 giving them a recommendation for how to deal 

21 with it at all. And simply put it on their 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

55 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 plate as, you know, this is something that 

2 came up here. It's really not our 

3 jurisdiction, but it does affect how we do our 

4 dose reconstructions and it may affect how 

5 claims come out, and you may want to look at 

6 it, and leave it at that. 

7 MEMBER LEMEN: If you do that, what 

8 are you expecting DOL to do? 

9 MR. KATZ: It's not my -- I mean, I 

10 don't know what DOL will do, but it's really, 

11 again --

12 MEMBER LEMEN: What can they do? 

13 MR. KATZ: I mean, they have -- I'm 

14 not an expert on what discretion they have. I 

15 would guess they have discretion in how they 

16 deal with ascribing diagnoses to cases. So I 

17 think if they came to a firm conclusion about 

18 this, they could take some action one way or 

19 the other in terms of how they deal with the 

20 diagnoses that they send over to NIOSH, which 

21 NIOSH has to respond to by doing a dose 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 reconstruction according to diagnosis. 

2 MEMBER LEMEN: In other words, what 

3 they could do is change the diagnosis from 

4 Hodgkin's to non-Hodgkin's? Is that what 

5 you're saying? 

6 MR. KATZ: Possibly. I don't know. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it would look 

8 that way to us, but we don't really know. 

9 Like Ted says, we don't know how much 

10 discretion they have. 

11 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, it seems that 

12 we're kind of at an impasse. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if the 

14 official certificate of death, I guess we're 

15 talking about, says it's one or the other, are 

16 they ever at liberty to change that? 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: See, that's just 

18 it. I don't know that they are. If they have 

19 a medical diagnosis --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, just on the 

21 basis of saying, well, we're not sure that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 doctors in those days knew what they were 

2 doing -- I don't want to put it that way -- 

3 had the ability to distinguish; therefore, 

4 we're going to assume they're all one or the 

5 other --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if 

7 they can or not. 

8 MEMBER LEMEN: Do they accept --

9 this is my question probably. What does DOL 

10 accept? Just a death certificate or do they 

11 accept pathology reports? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Pathology reports 

13 are accepted. 

14 MEMBER LEMEN: So they'll accept 

15 either/or? 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Well, yes, I 

17 know they get pathology because --

18 MEMBER LEMEN: The death 

19 certificate is notoriously usually inaccurate. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the death 

21 certificate is not usually --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

58 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: But that's a 

2 starting point. I mean, if there were 

3 pathology in the record that contradicted the 

4 report, I'm sure they would use that. But, 

5 otherwise, it's hard for me to imagine that, 

6 number one, that they are going to go back on 

7 these early ones and change them. 

8 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, maybe I'm 

9 being naive, but it seems to me if DOL has the 

10 ultimate say, if they send something to us and 

11 it says it's a Hodgkin's, then NIOSH really 

12 has only the choice of treating it as a 

13 Hodgkin's, is that correct? 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the way we 

15 behave. Yes. 

16 MEMBER LEMEN: And therefore, even 

17 if we come about and come to a decision, it 

18 ultimately has to go back to DOL to make the 

19 decision as to whether or not they're going to 

20 change the way they treat this. 

21 So it seems to me at this point 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

59 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 what the Board should do or the Subcommittee 

2 should do is ask NIOSH and SC&A to get 

3 together one more time and come up with some 

4 type of a letter that we send to DOL telling 

5 them what the dilemma is. 

6 DR. ULSH: What would you like that 

7 letter to contain? Because --

8 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, that's what I 

9 don't know. I mean that is something that 

10 SC&A and you have to come to a --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I guess I'm 

12 wondering if there really is a dilemma. I 

13 think the last statement Hans made was, 

14 although recognizing the new diagnostic 

15 measures, I think, Hans, you said you didn't 

16 see how we could do anything about it on the 

17 early cases? 

18 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, let me just 

19 comment again here. It's basically an 

20 assumption that has been made that the Reed21 Sternberg cell, which defines, obviously, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

60 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Hodgkin's lymphoma, is so unique and so 

2 characteristic of the Hodgkin's lymphoma that 

3 it stands out among all the other non4 Hodgkin's lymphomas, which are much more 

5 heterogenous in terms of their morphology and 

6 cytochemical characteristics, et cetera, et 

7 cetera. 

8 On the other hand, for instance, 

9 among the different groups of non-Hodgkin's 

10 lymphoma, you have lymphocytic well11 differentiated type; you have the lymphocytic 

12 poorly-differentiated type, the histiocytic, 

13 and even the mixed histiocytic-lymphocytic 

14 type. So you have this very, very 

15 heterogenous population of cells that all give 

16 rise to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. 

17 And I'm reading from my 1979 

18 pathology textbook which states that, "In 

19 certain instances, cells may be multinucleates 

20 and difficult to distinguish from Reed21 Sternberg cells." This was 1979, and I can 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

61 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 only conclude that in those days it was truly 

2 the light microscope which provided the 

3 principal means by which these diagnostic 

4 differentiations were made between Hodgkin's 

5 and non-Hodgkin's. And this is what triggered 

6 this whole thing. 

7 To what extent we can go back and 

8 rectify that limitation may be beyond our 

9 ability, and maybe we just have to realize, as 

10 has already been mentioned, that we have to 

11 live with the diagnosis as it stands. Whether 

12 it's right or wrong, we may not be in a 

13 position to do anything about it. 

14 MEMBER LEMEN: How did this 

15 originate? I mean this originated before I 

16 came on the Board, but --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: The finding 

18 originated in SC&A's review of our Program 

19 Evaluation Report. Well --

20 DR. ULSH: Before that. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's how it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 got to this group, this Work Group. 

2 DR. ULSH: Right. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: The question of, 

4 well, the dose, the target organ, what's the 

5 correct target, that came up earlier. 

6 What were you going to say? What 

7 came up? 

8 DR. ULSH: Yes, it started with our 

9 TIB where we went back and changed the target 

10 organs and how we treat hematopoietic 

11 diseases, non-Hodgkin's and Hodgkin's disease. 

12 I think our review also looked at leukemia, 

13 but that's not an issue of contention here. 

14 Then, I think, well, we did a PER 

15 on that to implement that TIB. And I think 

16 the way it got here was S&CA was tasked to 

17 review that PER. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

19 DR. ULSH: And in that review, they 

20 raised the questions that we're discussing 

21 now. So that's the history. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

63 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER LEMEN: Let me ask you 

2 another question, and it's totally different 

3 than this. But that is does the legislation 

4 allow for changes in the ICD-9 coding to when 

5 ICD becomes antiquated and we've now gone into 

6 the ICD-10, is there a way that the 

7 legislation updates that or does that take a 

8 Congressional --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it 

10 specified 9. 

11 MEMBER LEMEN: It specified 9. I 

12 know that, but does that have any -- because 

13 the ICD-10 treats this completely differently. 

14 And if we went by ICD-10, we wouldn't have 

15 this issue. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I believe 

17 that we could get an opinion on that, but, I 

18 mean, that will be, actually, a Department of 

19 Labor function to switch from 9 to 10 because 

20 they make the diagnoses. 

21 MEMBER LEMEN: Maybe that's what we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

64 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 should be asking because ICD-10 has now been 

2 in effect for almost --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it's not new. 

4 MEMBER LEMEN: -- 10 years at 

5 least. And we're dealing with a 

6 classification system that's 20-30 years 

7 old --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

9 MEMBER LEMEN: -- as compared to 

10 the new one, which does treat the lymphomas 

11 differently than did the 9 system. So maybe 

12 that's the question we should be looking at. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, after I 

14 consult with our OGC, I could find out if it 

15 would be a reason -- if there would be a way 

16 to right that. Our OGC might tell me don't 

17 bother because the statute says this in this 

18 way, and therefore, ICD-9 code is what the 

19 statute requires. 

20 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, I think that's 

21 what the OGC is going to say, quite frankly. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

65 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 I don't see that they're going to want to 

2 change. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I know they 

4 won't want to change, but the question is, I 

5 mean, does the statute provide the leeway for 

6 it? 

7 I mean, for instance, in the 

8 statute it says that Probability of Causation 

9 should be calculated by the tables, the 

10 Probability of Causation tables from the 

11 Orphan Drug Act as those may be updated. 

12 Okay? 

13 If it said anything like that about 

14 ICD-9 codes, I would assume that that would 

15 happen as well. And I suppose that it didn't 

16 --

17 MEMBER LEMEN: I guess I don't see 

18 the Board spending any amount of time on this 

19 because I think we've -- I don't see why we're 

20 wasting more time on it. The question is what 

21 should we do to close it out? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

66 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we have been 

2 told repeatedly that the diagnoses are the 

3 purview of the Department of Labor and that 

4 they have made every effort to obtain all the 

5 medical records that they can for each of the 

6 claimants. 

7 So anything that comes to NIOSH for 

8 dose reconstruction has been, we are assured, 

9 thoroughly vetted by the Department of Labor. 

10 It is difficult to see how we could provide 

11 any useful information that DOL isn't already 

12 aware of with respect to the content of the 

13 law and what they're instructed to use or not 

14 to use. 

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Then should we make 

16 a motion to close this out of the Board? 

17 CHAIR MUNN: At least in the record 

18 that I have, we have these two items closed 

19 out. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: If you look back in 

21 April of 2008, I think we say that SC&A agrees 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

67 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 that the issue should be closed. So as far as 

2 basically anything to do with NIOSH or the 

3 Board or the Subcommittee, I think we have 

4 agreed that there's nothing really that we can 

5 do, and we should close these issues. 

6 And, again, the question became 

7 was, you know, the second part of this thing 

8 was do we want to bring something up to the 

9 Department of Labor? And from what I'm 

10 hearing today is probably not. 

11 MEMBER LEMEN: Right, I think we 

12 should close this part out, but I would like 

13 to suggest and ask NIOSH to go to the OGC and 

14 find out about this issue of ICD-9 versus 

15 ICD-10. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Is it --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I have a 

18 question. I would think, and maybe we can 

19 find this out, that going from 9 to 10 

20 probably affects more than this also. 

21 MEMBER LEMEN: Oh, yes, it will. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

68 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it's a broader 

2 question for the Department of Labor. 

3 MEMBER LEMEN: It is a broader 

4 question. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: And certainly in 

6 terms of what they do, that's got to be 

7 something that's already on their plate. I 

8 think that because Jeff Kotsch and others 

9 attend our meetings regularly, they're 

10 actually aware of this issue from the past, I 

11 believe --

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think Jeff --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- from discussions 

14 in the full Board meeting. 

15 And the other point I'll make is 

16 that, in the past, we have been somewhat 

17 hesitant to go to Labor with issues sort of 

18 giving the impression that we are trying to 

19 establish their agenda in some way. It's a 

20 little bit of the push between agencies, I 

21 suppose. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

69 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 But there have been several 

2 occasions where we have, where we felt --

3 we're not demanding that they do something. 

4 We're just calling their attention to an issue 

5 that has raised concerns for us. 

6 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, I'm not asking 

7 that we demand them. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, no. 

9 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm simply saying 

10 that --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: But even going to 

12 them, in the past we have been somewhat 

13 hesitant unless it's such a big issue that we 

14 feel that they --

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, I think the 

16 ICD-10 is a big enough issue that the Board 

17 ought to be on record of saying, "You ought to 

18 at least consider this." 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Well, you know, we 

20 have an opportunity to do that at open Board 

21 meetings when Jeff gives his report or when 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

70 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Labor gives their report. They always leave a 

2 question period open for us, and it's been my 

3 impression that they're wide open to any 

4 suggestion that we want to make or any 

5 question that we want to ask at that time. Is 

6 this a legitimate question that we need to ask 

7 at the Board meeting? 

8 MR. KATZ: And given that there's 

9 no single view on this and that it has lots of 

10 wrinkles, I mean that might be a good venue. 

11 Certainly every Board meeting you can do that. 

12 MEMBER LEMEN: That's fine with me. 

13 MR. KATZ: And you can point to the 

14 record that this Subcommittee has had 

15 discussions about this. You can point to this 

16 record for this Subcommittee. We have a 

17 transcript, and they can avail themselves of 

18 it and see exactly what we discussed, what the 

19 wrinkles are. 

20 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm not particularly 

21 expecting anything to change because when 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

71 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 something gets put in concrete in legislation, 

2 it's very hard to change it. But I am feeling 

3 that NIOSH, since we're aware of this change 

4 in the ICD codes, and even, like Paul said, if 

5 they've heard it, we ought to at least go on 

6 record in a meeting where we bring it up and 

7 talk about it a little bit. That's my 

8 opinion. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Is that the general 

10 consensus of the Subcommittee? Do we hear 

11 anything from Mark or Mike? 

12 (No response.) 

13 I'm not hearing anything. If there 

14 is no disagreement in that regard, Dick, would 

15 you like to be the person who asks the 

16 question or would you prefer --

17 MEMBER LEMEN: I don't mind asking 

18 the question. I think there are other Members 

19 of the Board that are probably better 

20 qualified than me to ask the question, but 

21 I'll get together with a couple of other Board 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

72 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Members, and we'll decide how it's handled at 

2 the Board meeting. 

3 DR. H. BEHLING: This is Hans 

4 Behling. Can I just make a comment? 

5 I believe from what was already 

6 stated, the issue may be one that we simply 

7 will not be able to resolve because it's 

8 pretty much in the same area of the other 

9 issue that I raised in my review of the PER, 

10 and that is the role of smoking. And we all 

11 concluded that when you do smoke, for 

12 instance, the lung clearance rate by alveolar 

13 macrophages will probably be handicapped and, 

14 to a large extent, may modify the whole issue 

15 of radioactivity that is in the deep lung 

16 transferred to regional lymph nodes. It is an 

17 issue that is too technical for us to even 

18 address. 

19 I think we all agreed that it might 

20 have a significant impact, but it is beyond 

21 the purview of the Board or NIOSH to even 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

73 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 address the issue. So this may be just in the 

2 same area as the issue of smoking and the role 

3 of smoking in terms of lymphoma induction. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: I will work on the 

5 assumption, unless I hear otherwise, that Dr. 

6 Lemen is going to ask the question during the 

7 question-and-answer portion of our next full 

8 Board meeting when Labor gives their report to 

9 us. Just point out that this question has 

10 been raised in our Subcommittee and we have no 

11 -- our action is closed, but we wondered 

12 whether Labor had this concern, the same that 

13 we have, with respect to the change from 9 to 

14 10. 

15 MEMBER LEMEN: That's fine with me, 

16 but do we need to make, since it appears that 

17 the other issue we started talking about is 

18 already closed out, do we need to make any 

19 formal closeout of that in this Subcommittee? 

20 Or can we just let that lay at rest and go 

21 forward with our next agenda item? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

74 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, PER-9, one of 

2 the problems I'm having with the database is I 

3 don't know how to enter new documents. And 

4 PER-9 is one of the new documents. It wasn't 

5 in the old Access database. So it didn't get 

6 carried over. So I don't know how to enter 

7 PER-9 into the new database. 

8 If it was in the new database, I 

9 would just do a change status on it and close 

10 it today, right now. But since it's not in 

11 the database, I can't do that. 

12 But I think what I'll do is when I 

13 learn the capabilities of adding new 

14 documents, I'll add PER-9, add these two 

15 issues in, and identify that -- I don't know 

16 -- at some meeting, whether we go back to, 

17 whether we specify today's meeting or if we go 

18 back to April of 2008, and identify that it 

19 was closed at one of these meetings, but, in 

20 any regard, both these issues, as far as the 

21 database is concerned, I would assume have a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

75 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 closed status on them. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: I agree, and I would 

3 suggest that the original date be the one that 

4 is attached to the entry. And by the way, 

5 that's one of the things that we had lost that 

6 we asked to be put back on again, is that 

7 original date, so that we had these in groups 

8 as we have had handled them in the past. 

9 And once PER-9 is on the database, 

10 then a note summarizing our discussion here 

11 today with today's date on it would seem to me 

12 to be appropriate. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Pardon me, Wanda? 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Just a note that the 

15 Subcommittee discussed these issues today --

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Continued to discuss 

17 the details --

18 CHAIR MUNN: -- and the conclusion 

19 was reached that we would simply, in a Board 

20 meeting, ask the Department of Labor whether -

21 - advise the Department of Labor that we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

76 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 discussed it at length and were concerned 

2 about the changes in process that had occurred 

3 in diagnoses over the last decade, whether 

4 that is on their plate as well. 

5 MEMBER LEMEN: That's fine with me. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Any other comments or 

7 questions about PER-9? 

8 (No response.) 

9 I have been carrying PER-12 on my 

10 list of open items for a number of months 

11 without any information. I have not gone back 

12 in the transcripts to try to identify exactly 

13 what this issue was. 

14 Hans, do you recall why we were 

15 continuing to carry PER-12? I had thought 

16 that --

17 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, actually, my 

18 feeling was that we really had no significant 

19 findings regarding PER-12, mainly because the 

20 OTIB-49, which really forms the basis for it, 

21 has been reviewed previously. And I think we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

77 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 pretty much resolved most of the issues there. 

2 The only outstanding issue that at 

3 this point we're facing is the selection of 

4 potential cases that have been reconstructed 

5 under PER-12 for a new audit. I think what we 

6 have yet to do, and I think this belongs to 

7 NIOSH, is to identify the universe from which 

8 we choose these 10 cases. I had identified in 

9 Section 5 of my report the various groupings 

10 of cases that we might want to review if there 

11 has been reconstruction of doses for them. 

12 And they involved -- it is based on the target 

13 organ and, also, the methodology that was used 

14 to do the original dose reconstruction, 

15 whether it was done by urinalysis, lung 

16 counts, fecal samples, or air samples. 

17 So we identified a total of 10 

18 different methods by which a revised dose 

19 reconstruction would take place and, 

20 therefore, identified a minimum of perhaps 10 

21 cases that we might want to audit to see if 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

78 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 the PER-12 has been implemented in accordance 

2 with the guidance as stated in the PER. 

3 MR. KATZ: Yes, Hans, this is Ted. 

4 That's the agenda item for the next Dose 

5 Reconstruction Subcommittee meeting, to make 

6 that selection. So DCAS will be serving up 

7 candidate cases for that for the next Dose 

8 Reconstruction Subcommittee meeting. That's 

9 where that will be done. 

10 DR. H. BEHLING: As far as I'm 

11 concerned, we're pretty much finished with 

12 PER-12. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: I think what you just 

14 said is tangentially related to the reason I 

15 thought that we were carrying it, which was 

16 based on the statement that Steve just made a 

17 little bit ago. I think we had had a 

18 discussion about how we were going to place 

19 the PERs into our database and how we were 

20 going to track them. 

21 At the time that we originated this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

79 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 discussion, PER-9 and PER-12 were the two that 

2 had been done. And the question was whether 

3 they were going to be tracked here or not. 

4 But that, obviously, has not come to fruition 

5 yet. We still don't know that, but it's one 

6 of the things that will arise naturally, I 

7 think, out of our discussion about how to add. 

8 MR. KATZ: Right. So, Wanda, 12 

9 would be tracked because after the Dose 

10 Reconstruction Committee does its -- after 

11 SC&A does its review of the cases, and so on, 

12 they'll come back to here --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes. 

14 MR. KATZ: -- after they have 

15 results from that review. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

17 MR. KATZ: So that's why it would 

18 be tracked, and that's why it makes sense to 

19 put it in there as an item for tracking. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Is there 

21 anything else we need to talk about with 9 and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

80 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 12, with the two PERs? 

2 (No response.) 

3 If not, then we are ahead of our 

4 time, thank goodness. We need to be ahead of 

5 our time. 

6 Before we take a break, does anyone 

7 have any problem with our moving on to the 

8 next item, which is OTIB-49-1 and 2, the tech 

9 talk about retained plutonium? Did that ever 

10 occur? This is the third time we have had 

11 this supposed technical discussion that is 

12 supposed to take place offline. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think it 

14 relies on Joyce Lipsztein. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: What's the story with 

16 Joyce, John? Is she back on board or she is 

17 still unavailable to us? 

18 DR. MAURO: She is. I did email 

19 her and asked if she could join us this 

20 afternoon to cover a number of these issues. 

21 This is one of them. But I haven't heard back 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 from her. So I will be checking my emails as 

2 the day progresses here and see if, in fact, 

3 she's going to be able to join us. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: I think she's 

5 planning on joining us. I got an email from 

6 her asking about Report 44. 

7 DR. MAURO: Right. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: She wanted to get a 

9 copy of the document. So she may be planning 

10 on joining us around 3:30 --

11 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: -- when that is 

13 scheduled to be discussed. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Then we 

15 will, for the moment, defer OTIB-49 until we 

16 have an opportunity to have Dr. Lipsztein on 

17 board. 

18 DR. MAURO: Very good. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: That brings us to 

20 OTIB-54 and SC&A's reply to NIOSH responses. 

21 John, do you have the lead on that? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. MAURO: Yes. Well, Steve, I 

2 think you prepared something on all the --

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Ostrow is 

4 actually the --

5 DR. MAURO: A number of them have 

6 been resolved, and we have recommendations for 

7 closing. I don't have those. I'm not on my 

8 computer right now. 

9 Steve, I read through that package 

10 that you sent through, and it looks like most 

11 of the items are closed, but there are a 

12 couple that are in progress. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: That was sent out on 

14 the 20th of October. Does everyone have that 

15 Procedures Subcommittee document, email 

16 document from -- that Steve Marschke sent out 

17 to us with respect to OTIB-49? 

18 DR. MAURO: Fifty-four. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, pardon me. Pardon 

20 me. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: When was that sent 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 out? 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: I sent out -- well, 

3 I don't know where Wanda's --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I'm looking at the 

5 one that came out on 49. I'm sorry. I'm 

6 confusing the issue. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yesterday, before I 

8 left, I sent an email that had, I think, six 

9 attachments to it. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, yes. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: And included in one 

12 of those six attachments was a document called 

13 "OTIB-54 SC&A Reply," a Word document. This 

14 was put together by Steve Ostrow, who I think 

15 is on the phone. 

16 DR. OSTROW: I'm here. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: And this, basically, 

18 is Steve's reply. So responses to the NIOSH 

19 initial responses. I put it up on the screen 

20 for those of you who are in the room here. 

21 And, Steve Ostrow, if you want to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

84 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 walk through here -- I don't want to steal 

2 your thunder, but it looks to me, at least, 

3 the first five that are up on the screen now, 

4 we agree with the NIOSH responses, and we are 

5 recommending that the first five issues be 

6 closed. 

7 DR. OSTROW: That's correct. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Issues 6 and 7, we 

9 also -- does anybody want to read through or 

10 talk about any of the specific first five 

11 issues or --

12 CHAIR MUNN: In view of the fact 

13 that we only had these responses last night, 

14 and I, frankly, glanced at them, but did not 

15 read them, I mean my real question here is 

16 whether our NIOSH folks have had an 

17 opportunity to look at them, and if they're 

18 okay with any of it. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, NIOSH is 

20 basically -- we're just -- for the first seven 

21 -- we're just agreeing with NIOSH. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

85 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: You're saying, "Yes, 

2 yes, yes" to the first five. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, the first five. 

4 DR. MAURO: This is John. Let me 

5 point out that you'll notice that not only do 

6 we recommend closing, but we also have our 

7 rationale. There's a brief paragraph next to 

8 each item with the rationale that we reviewed 

9 it and, in general, the reasons why we agree. 

10 This way, it's all on the record. 

11 So, you know, I think what I say is 

12 we're recommending. Now if you want to hear a 

13 little bit more about the rationale, why we 

14 agree -- in other words, what happened was 

15 NIOSH responded to our concern, provided some 

16 detail on why they consider the approach that 

17 they did use appropriate, and we reviewed it, 

18 and we found favorably in their response. 

19 That's sort of all laid out in the matrix 

20 table that's before you all. 

21 So I guess we can go through the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

86 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 individual items if you would like. See, 

2 really, we're at a point now where we're 

3 making a recommendation to the Subcommittee, 

4 and it's really now a matter for the 

5 Subcommittee to accept that recommendation. 

6 And once that's done, of course, Steve could 

7 make the change in the matrix, the system, to 

8 close the item. 

9 But I don't think they're closed 

10 now. Is that right, Steve? We're waiting --

11 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm not sure what 

12 the status is, whether it's open or in 

13 progress. It's probably either one of those 

14 two. 

15 But, again, just looking at the 

16 data, looking at Steve's file here, the first 

17 13 of them are either -- we are recommending 

18 either we close the issue or we change the 

19 status -- we accept the issue and change the 

20 status to in abeyance. 

21 DR. OSTROW: That's correct. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are we on 0054? 

2 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, this is 

4 Mark Griffon. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Mark. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: I want to say one 

7 thing. I'm very happy to see a matrix for 

8 this response. But John just said SC&A's 

9 rationale is in here, and on most of these 

10 first five, anyway, I just see accepted or 

11 closed. I don't see SC&A's rationale. Am I 

12 missing something? 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Well, of course, they 

14 had a rationale. Their original comment was 

15 their concern. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, and then the 

17 NIOSH response. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: NIOSH responded to it. 

19 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. You're 

20 right, Mark. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- down there are 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 some --

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I see them 

4 now. 

5 DR. MAURO: Yes, but I think that 

6 it is a matter of saying, okay, here was 

7 SC&A's original concern. Then there is some 

8 detail there regarding NIOSH's explanation, 

9 why they feel it's appropriate. Now, in some 

10 cases, it's self-evident. I mean, when you 

11 read that, you can see they did address each 

12 of our questions item by item. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. And you're 

14 accepting NIOSH's response. 

15 DR. MAURO: And we accept their 

16 explanation. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

18 DR. MAURO: But, in other cases, I 

19 think as pointed out just now, there are 

20 places where we explored that a little further 

21 and we talk a little bit more. So, I mean, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

89 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 you could follow it and decide for yourself if 

2 you feel there's sufficient information on the 

3 record to recommend closing. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Thanks. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I think some of the 

6 comments, also, Mark, were not really issues, 

7 but they were raising a good point, making a 

8 point that we agreed with what was in the 

9 OTIB. Like, if you look at comment number 

10 two, three, and four, I think, more or less, 

11 we agree with what's in the OTIB and we agree 

12 with NIOSH, and so on and so forth. And NIOSH 

13 comes back and says no response needed. So 

14 when we have no response needed from NIOSH, we 

15 have, obviously, no rationale. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: And we did discuss 

17 these at considerable length when we had the 

18 NIOSH responses. So from my perspective, 

19 anything that is accepted, then, by SC&A can 

20 be closed or moved to in abeyance as shown. 

21 Any additional comment from SC&A, I would like 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 for us to spend some time on, unless someone 

2 has feelings to the contrary. 

3 If not, then it looks like we're at 

4 14? 

5 MEMBER LEMEN: That's the first 

6 one, it looks like to me. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Do you want to read 

8 that to us, Steve? 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: The issue is reactor 

10 source term. "SC&A questions averaging the 

11 source term over the four reactor types to 

12 produce the default source term in Table E-1 

13 since it is expected that in most cases the 

14 dose reconstructor would know which type of 

15 reactor or reactor fuel produced the 

16 claimant's exposure." 

17 CHAIR MUNN: You will recall we 

18 discussed this at considerable length in 

19 October. 

20 Yes, go ahead, Steve. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: The NIOSH response 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
91 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 is, "The data in Table E-1 are not averaged 

2 across the four reactors. The comment 

3 pertains to Table E-2." And then goes on to 

4 say, "We do not agree that dose reconstructors 

5 will know what reactor to select in most 

6 cases. The purpose for averaging across the 

7 four representative reactors was to create a 

8 single hypothetical representative reactor 

9 appropriate for all sites. The four 

10 representative reactors were selected because 

11 they encompass a wider range of reactor types 

12 themselves selected to cover a wide range of 

13 fuel types, enrichments, and burnup." 

14 The SC&A reply to that response 

15 was, "SC&A agrees with NIOSH's first 

16 paragraph. Original comment should have 

17 referred to Table E-2." And then more 

18 substantially, it says, "While it is 

19 convenient to average across the four reactor 

20 types, this procedure would not produce a 

21 bounding exposure. Source terms for the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

92 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 reactor type that yield the maximum exposure 

2 should be used for consistency with NIOSH's 

3 stated purpose of the OTIB." And, then, in 

4 parentheses, "See NIOSH's response to Comment 

5 No. 23," closed parentheses. 

6 And we are recommending that this 

7 status be in progress. Steve shows it as 

8 being open, but since we're discussing it, it 

9 should probably be in progress. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: So you're asking 

12 for the rationale for choosing an average 

13 value as a bounding value, I think is what 

14 you're saying? 

15 DR. MAURO: Exactly, yes. 

16 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve Ostrow. 

17 I just wanted to make the comment, 

18 the reason I made this comment, and I repeated 

19 this a few times, it's not clear what OTIB-54 

20 is intended to be. NIOSH states, in their 

21 response to Comment 23, that OTIB-54 was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

93 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 "never intended to provide anything more than 

2 a favorable overestimate." 

3 Now if it's supposed to be a 

4 favorable overestimate, then perhaps they 

5 shouldn't average the four reactor types, but 

6 they should use the bounding, the highest 

7 value. But it seems little bit inconsistent. 

8 If it really is supposed to be an 

9 overestimate, this OTIB, I think they should 

10 use the highest value. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: So let me 

12 understand. They have a list of 

13 radionuclides, and they have values for each 

14 one of the four reactor types. And then what 

15 they do is they take the four values, and for 

16 the default reactor they average those four 

17 values? 

18 DR. OSTROW: That's my 

19 understanding of what they did. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: And what you're 

21 suggesting is, basically, instead of averaging 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

94 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 them, you look for the maximum of those four 

2 types and use that value as the default value? 

3 DR. OSTROW: Yes, that's what I'm 

4 suggesting, and that would be consistent with 

5 the purpose that NIOSH states in comment --

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Twenty-three. 

7 DR. MAURO: And that philosophy, 

8 you know, NIOSH has adopted across the board 

9 when there's uncertainties like this, and they 

10 deal with with regard to chemical form, 

11 particle size. You know, always defaulting to 

12 the one that's going to tend to give the 

13 benefit of the doubt. So we were surprised 

14 that you would go with a new construct which 

15 averaged across them, and we would have 

16 thought that they would have gone with the 

17 same basic philosophy. 

18 Well, then, we'll just go with the 

19 limiting one, the limiting mix of 

20 radionuclides for that reactor type, I mean 

21 limiting for that particular person's cancer. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

95 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 So we were just surprised that they went with 

2 a construct that really sort of averaged it 

3 out. They really haven't done in the past. 

4 In the past, they usually did go -- NIOSH did 

5 go with the limiting mix. 

6 Anyway, so that's what we're 

7 putting on the table as a way to resolve this 

8 issue. And certainly, NIOSH, you know, it's 

9 something that they could consider. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Paul? 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think we had this 

12 discussion before because it's not just the 

13 average. The mixes are different for each of 

14 the four systems. So the only way you could 

15 do, I think, what's being described is to take 

16 the maximum nuclide from one reactor and then 

17 a different one from a different reactor, and 

18 you would get a funny mix of maximizing all 

19 the individual nuclides and putting that 

20 together. Is that what you're talking about? 

21 DR. MAURO: No, Paul. Well, I --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

96 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or are you just 

2 saying take the maximum of the four --

3 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- mixes? 

5 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes. I remember 

6 we talked about this. No, it would be 

7 implausible to have a mix that would represent 

8 the worst of each one of those reactors and 

9 pick that worst mix. 

10 We think that if you don't know 

11 which class of reactors you're dealing with, 

12 you pick that class that would be the one that 

13 would be most bounding. So it would be 

14 plausible. That is, if you don't know, you 

15 pick the one that could plausibly have been 

16 the reactor this person was exposed, where he 

17 got his exposures from, and the one that would 

18 give the mix of beta-gamma emitters in the 

19 urine that would result in the limiting dose 

20 to the organ of concern. 

21 So it would really be a matter, I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

97 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 guess, of running the four cases and finding 

2 out which one gives you the highest for --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, actually, 

4 John, it would be running the four cases times 

5 every target organ. 

6 DR. MAURO: Oh, well, no, for the 

7 particular person. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, but I mean --

9 DR. MAURO: But you could help me 

10 with this. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for the dose 

12 reconstructor to know what to do --

13 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I mean you're 

15 going to have the dose reconstructor run all 

16 four cases for that particular case or, ahead 

17 of time, in this document you're going to say, 

18 for this organ, here's your mixture, or for 

19 this collection of organs, this is the mixture 

20 you use. 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

98 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: And for this 

2 collection of organs, you use this mixture. 

3 Either way, for every one of these dose 

4 reconstructions that use this technique, that 

5 means you do four IMBA runs instead of one, or 

6 you do four times the number of dose -- you 

7 know, target organs you might have one time, 

8 and do it that way. 

9 DR. MAURO: Yes. I mean you could 

10 understand our rationale. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I understand 

12 the rationale. I'm just trying to figure out 

13 where we end up. 

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. No, I understand. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- what difference 

16 there is. I don't know if we've ever looked 

17 at the difference. 

18 DR. MAURO: Well, but I think our 

19 rationale is appropriate, given the philosophy 

20 that we have all agreed to. I also appreciate 

21 that maybe implementing that rationale, the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

99 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 mechanics of it, could be burdensome. I'm not 

2 sure. You know, it sounds like running these 

3 four cases instead of just one --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I can get a paper 

5 out of this. 

6 (Laughter.) 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, could I 

8 comment further? It seems to me, this is sort 

9 of intuitive, but you not only would have to 

10 do that for each individual, but what the 

11 maximum is is going to depend not only on the 

12 target organ, but some intake times and some 

13 other parameters. So I don't think you know a 

14 priori which mix to even use. Do you know 

15 what I'm saying? We don't even know what the 

16 maximum is for an individual. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: No, actually, 

18 you're probably right because of intake times 

19 and diagnosis dates. Dose would fit --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because you have a funny 

21 mix of nuclides, you don't know what the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

100 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 maximum is going to be for a given target 

2 organ for an individual. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: That's why I was 

4 thinking I would have kind of gone a different 

5 way than what John was suggesting. I would 

6 have kind of gone with the maximum 

7 radionuclide or for each radionuclide, the 

8 maximum value, and come up with a default 

9 which is a mix from all the different reactor 

10 types. Now I don't know what that does to the 

11 total dose or if it sends it through the roof 

12 or what because I don't know how close they --

13 DR. MAURO: Well, hold on for a 

14 second. Maybe it's more complicated than I 

15 have in my mind, and I'm looking at it too 

16 simply. 

17 But, for a moment, let's say we're 

18 looking at a person and he has a record of 

19 gross beta-gamma analysis of urine samples. 

20 You know, maybe he had monthly, yearly, or 

21 quarterly, or whatever. And you've got the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

101 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 data. 

2 But the problem you have is you 

3 don't know what mix of radionuclides to use, 

4 to assign. What did he inhale to get that 

5 mix? And right now, you have a protocol that 

6 says, well, if he worked at this kind of 

7 reactor, we'll use this mix. If he worked at 

8 this kind of reactor, we use this mix. And it 

9 all seems pretty straightforward. 

10 But now along comes a problem which 

11 may be the exception to the rule that you only 

12 rarely encounter, but you say, well, 

13 unfortunately, we really don't know which 

14 reactor he was working with, you know, and as 

15 a result, we don't know what mix to assign. 

16 But we know it had to be one of these four 

17 categories. It's fair enough, let's say. 

18 I guess, why couldn't you just pick 

19 that mix that you felt he could have been 

20 exposed to that really puts an upper bound? 

21 And it's really choosing from before. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

102 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 You know, I guess, is there more to 

2 the problem than that? 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: You don't know which 

4 of the four is the upper bound. If I 

5 understand what Stu and Paul are saying, it is 

6 that the upper bound depends upon what organ 

7 you're looking at. 

8 DR. MAURO: Right. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: It also depends upon 

10 what inhalation rates, and so on and so forth, 

11 that are being utilized. So there's more to 

12 it than just looking at -- you can't just tell 

13 by looking at the four mixes which one is the 

14 bounding one. 

15 DR. MAURO: You would have to run 

16 it four times. Right, you would have to run, 

17 for that organ, for this particular scenario, 

18 for that person -- now you tell me if this 

19 would be burdensome. 

20 So here we have this person, but, 

21 unfortunately, because you don't know which 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

103 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 reactor, you're sort of stuck; you're going to 

2 have to run all four, and then see which one 

3 gives you the highest dose to the organ of 

4 concern. So, clearly, it will be four times 

5 more work related to running IMBA. 

6 I've seen you've done that many 

7 times. So I guess I wasn't thinking that this 

8 would be unusually burdensome as compared to 

9 the kinds of things you were doing already in 

10 order to optimize or place an upper bound on 

11 worker doses. 

12 But is it more than that, than just 

13 running it four times? 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think, no 

15 matter how we end up with this, I don't know 

16 how it's doable unless we have a preset almost 

17 list of intake and dose regimes per whatever 

18 mixture we choose, whether it's an average, 

19 whether it's one, or do it for the four. 

20 Because I don't think we could have the dose 

21 reconstructor run the IMBA runs every time, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

104 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 even if we had an agreed-upon set of 

2 radionuclides, because you run IMBA by 

3 radionuclide. So, you do the cesium-137, the 

4 intake, and, then, you do the strontium-90 

5 intake, and, then, you do the iron-59 intake, 

6 or whatever. 

7 So, if you had a dose reconstructor 

8 and say, okay, we're going to these dose 

9 reconstructions so that each time the dose 

10 reconstructor does a dose reconstruction, 

11 they're actually going to run IMBA for that 

12 dose reconstruction, they're already -- I 

13 haven't looked at the table for how many 

14 nuclides are here, but I know it's a list. 

15 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: You'll have to run 

17 IMBA that many times if you have an agreed18 upon set of intake values. 

19 So, to be workable, this kind of 

20 has to be precalculated, predispositioned, so 

21 that the dose reconstructor can make the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

105 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 selections that are relevant for that case in 

2 terms of exposure time, amount of exposure 

3 based on the bioassay data, dates of exposure, 

4 and dates of diagnosis, and the specific 

5 cancer. So, they can make the entries based 

6 on that information that is specific to that 

7 case and use this pregenerative whatever 

8 calculational method that you're going to have 

9 to do it. So, I think, I mean, you would have 

10 to have four of those precalculated workbooks 

11 each time. 

12 I don't know. I really can't 

13 commit to too much. I mean we can certainly 

14 take this back to the people at ORAU who have 

15 far more knowledge about dose reconstruction 

16 than I do and workings, and what would work in 

17 terms of producing dose reconstructions than I 

18 do. 

19 DR. MAURO: Well, the only reason 

20 I'm saying what I'm saying is that, 

21 apparently, doing it for one kind of reactor, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

106 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 for that complete mix that's there for that 

2 reactor, No. 1, you do, and you're fine with 

3 that. And I guess I just simply thought, 

4 well, if you could do it one time, every time 

5 you have to do, you have to pick one of these 

6 reactors and do it. And I don't know how you 

7 actually exercise that. 

8 Now what we're saying is, well, 

9 maybe, unfortunately, when you have this 

10 unknown, you might have to do that, but not 

11 one time, but four times. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

13 DR. MAURO: And it may turn out 

14 that it is very burdensome. All we could do 

15 is say that we think the logic that we're 

16 bringing to the table regarding being 

17 claimant-favorable is consistent with the 

18 general philosophy, and the averaging approach 

19 appears to break that philosophy. That's all. 

20 There's a way to skin that cat, to 

21 make sure that you're being claimant-favorable 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

107 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 that's simpler than another way to come to it. 

2 Or, if you could say that, no, using the 

3 average thing, however you approached it or 

4 were tweaking that a bit, there may be a way 

5 to cover it. 

6 All we're really looking for is 

7 some assurance that, when you have the 

8 situation arise when you don't know which 

9 reactor it is, the degree of confidence that 

10 you are not underestimating the guy's dose. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Paul? 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I have an 

13 additional question here. Maybe it was 

14 discussed before, but it seems to me that 

15 there were already some claimant-favorable 

16 assumptions built into each of the four models 

17 to start with dealing with perhaps enrichment 

18 and the length of the time the reactor was 

19 operated, and some burnup things, and that 

20 kind of thing. 

21 I don't really remember off the top 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

108 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 of my head, but I think, John, you're 

2 struggling a little bit with the idea that 

3 we're assigning what's identified as an 

4 average dose here. 

5 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: And maybe we need 

7 to go back and get some clarity on that to 

8 help us come to closure. But I believe that 

9 there were some claimant-favorable assumptions 

10 made. Because you can't take each individual, 

11 I don't think, and figure out how many 

12 operating days that reactor had, what the 

13 inventory was, and all of those parameters. 

14 So, there's some practical issues there. 

15 But you can make claimant-favorable 

16 assumptions about each of the models and, 

17 then, say, okay, and we're averaging these 

18 claimant-favorable assumptions. Do you 

19 understand what I'm saying? 

20 DR. MAURO: Yes. No, and I'm fine 

21 with that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

109 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, if that's 

2 what's happening. 

3 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: But maybe some 

5 clarity on that. I'm just a little fuzzy in 

6 my mind. 

7 DR. MAURO: One more dimension to 

8 this. It may turn out that the simple 

9 solution is to have a single mix that you use 

10 universally that would apply to all 

11 circumstances that you feel would be bounding 

12 and plausible for every worker. 

13 In other words, I'm not one looking 

14 for more work that has to be done to do these 

15 dose reconstructions. If it turns out what 

16 you're saying, Paul, is basically built into 

17 each four are a lot of claimant-favorable 

18 assumptions in a way that you feel confident 

19 that for the individual reactors you're 

20 bounding. 

21 There may be even another 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

110 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 simplifying step. Just pick a single mix that 

2 is bounding. Now you always have these 

3 questions about plausibility. But that might 

4 be the solution. 

5 Or, as you point out, it may turn 

6 out that built into the four are enough 

7 conservatism that, even if you go with an 

8 averaging-type approach -- we'll call it 

9 averaging approach; I'm not sure if it's 

10 exactly averaging -- that the outcome of that, 

11 a case could be made it would be limiting for 

12 this person because of the inherent carryover 

13 of conservatisms. 

14 I mean we're fine with that, but we 

15 haven't heard that, but that may be the 

16 resolution. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that was the 

18 underlying tenet of what we had discussed when 

19 we went over this at considerable length last 

20 time --

21 DR. MAURO: Right. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

111 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Was that the amount of 

2 conservatism already built in was, as I 

3 recall, creating some concern as to whether or 

4 not we were staying inside the plausibility 

5 limits. 

6 The question that comes to my mind, 

7 and perhaps I'm missing something really key 

8 here, is why there is so much angst over what 

9 type of reactor was involved with this 

10 individual's exposure. These reactors, their 

11 presence and their location is well-known. 

12 It's difficult for me to understand why this 

13 is such a large problem for us if we have work 

14 records for the individuals involved. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, you see, we 

16 won't necessarily know someone who works at 

17 Idaho Falls, for instance, what his entire 

18 history of exposure to various reactors was. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: That's true. However, 

20 the reactor types that we're choosing are more 

21 than adequate for the types at Idaho Falls. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

112 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, but, I mean, 

2 how would we select? I mean in certain years 

3 maybe he worked at ATR, in certain years he 

4 worked -- I can't remember what -- the boiler, 

5 or certain years he worked at EBR-II. And we 

6 don't know what years, but he worked there, 

7 say, during the years that these various 

8 reactors ran. We don't know what years he was 

9 at what reactor. 

10 And so, how do we, in terms of 

11 putting a temporal thing on his dose 

12 reconstruction, which one of those fission, 

13 nuclide mixtures do we use? 

14 CHAIR MUNN: I understand what 

15 you're saying, and I also understand what Paul 

16 was saying earlier. Power factors in any 

17 given year, exposures, the proximity to the 

18 reactor itself, the amount of shielding that 

19 was being used for one or other of the 

20 experiments that was going on, all of those 

21 factors go into it. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

113 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 So, the real question as it appears 

2 to be on the table right now is the one I just 

3 stated just a moment ago, which is, can we 

4 agree that this mix of reactors is not only 

5 reasonable, but falls within the limits of 

6 plausibility, since there isn't much of a 

7 question about whether or not there's going to 

8 be an underestimate here? Is that correct, 

9 John? We're not arguing --

10 DR. MAURO: I would say, if that 

11 case can be made, we haven't heard that. That 

12 is, the mix that was set as the default one, 

13 when you don't know the reactor, a case could 

14 be made that embedded in that is enough 

15 conservatism, that there's a level of 

16 assurance that you're not going to 

17 underestimate the dose. 

18 I mean that's all we're really 

19 looking for. It wasn't that complicated in 

20 terms of looking at the problem. It's simply 

21 the solution sounds like it's complicated, but 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

114 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 the problem is just some level of assurance 

2 that we're going to a process right now that 

3 gives everyone confidence that, by going to 

4 this default mix for the circumstance when you 

5 don't know, like you said, at Idaho Falls 

6 would be an example, INL, you may not know 

7 which reactor. 

8 And I'm not even sure if it makes 

9 not much difference when you go from reactor 

10 to reactor, the mix is that much different. 

11 I'm just presuming they are because you did 

12 develop four different mixes. 

13 But if a case could be made that 

14 this fifth mix, the fourth mix, is probably 

15 inherently conservative, that would do the 

16 trick. 

17 MR. BURNS: This is Bob Burns. 

18 I would add that the statement John 

19 just made, I think it's fair to say, was our 

20 philosophy when we compiled the document, that 

21 there was so much, I'll say, conservatism, for 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

115 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 lack of a better word, or favorability perhaps 

2 may be better, in the reactors individually, 

3 that the operational simplicity we achieve by 

4 averaging, we were still confident we weren't 

5 underestimating anyone's dose. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Can we agree that at 

7 this point what needs to happen is we need to 

8 have a response from NIOSH to SC&A's statement 

9 here, essentially saying what you just said, 

10 Bob, that we're okay here? So that SC&A can 

11 see that in writing. Will that resolve our 

12 momentary problem here? 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think the 

14 next action is ours, is a NIOSH/ORAU team 

15 response to this comment from SC&A. Rather 

16 than just restating the fact, some sort of 

17 evidence that --

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

19 MR. KATZ: Illustrate the 

20 conservatism with some sort --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Give evidence that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

116 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 there are sufficient conservatisms here, that 

2 we're not underestimating anybody's dose. 

3 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz 

4 Brackett. 

5 I would just point out that Section 

6 6.3 of OTIB-54 is titled, "Verification that 

7 Default Source Terms Do Not Underestimate 

8 Dose." 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Somebody read the 

10 actual document. 

11 (Laughter.) 

12 MS. BRACKETT: And so, I believe 

13 it's documented in here, and it gives 

14 approximate factors by conservatism. And 

15 maybe that would address the issue. 

16 DR. MAURO: Very good, Liz. I 

17 think you just caught us. 

18 (Laughter.) 

19 MR. BURNS: I would add to that 

20 there was a comment on that section that is 

21 still outstanding. I mean I agree with Liz. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

117 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 That was the intent in putting that 

2 information in the OTIB, but SC&A had raised 

3 some additional questions about that section 

4 that we're in the process of addressing. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, it 

6 sounds like we're working on what needs to be 

7 worked on. 

8 DR. ULSH: Well, there's several 

9 more findings here. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

11 DR. ULSH: I think what Bob is 

12 saying is some of those findings would have to 

13 relate to that. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: So, what he's 

15 saying is what we're doing will lend us -- you 

16 know, we're essentially going to provide what 

17 we would provide for this anyway. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Let's, 

19 then, for the moment, assume that the status 

20 of No. 14 is going to be response due from 

21 NIOSH. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

118 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that 14 or --

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it's 14. 

3 DR. ULSH: So, the status is open 

4 then? 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

6 MR. KATZ: In progress. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: It's in progress. 

8 DR. ULSH: In progress? 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Actually, it does 

10 come up on the database, and the first 13 

11 we're showing, basically, they are -- well, 

12 most of them we're showing as being closed or 

13 in progress, or I mean showing as closed or 

14 being in abeyance, I should say. So, the only 

15 one that we need to change, I guess, Steve, is 

16 issue number 9. The last time we talked about 

17 it, we said, basically, SC&A needs to go back 

18 and look at it. I guess you have looked at 

19 it, and now you're saying that one also can 

20 be --

21 MR. KATZ: But can I ask about this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

119 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 status? You said the action is DCAS, but they 

2 just said 6.3 illustrates the conservatisms. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Bob said 

4 there are other comments later on --

5 MR. KATZ: Right, but those are --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: That relate to 

7 that. 

8 MR. KATZ: Right. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: So, we can provide 

10 it, something here. 

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

12 MR. BURNS: Yes, it's Comment 16, 

13 specifically. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Good. 

16 MR. KATZ: But it seems to me that 

17 SC&A needs to review again 6.3, then, to see 

18 if that puts to bed, with the exception of 

19 this other comment -- it's the issue of 

20 conservatisms. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

120 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: With any luck at all, 

2 all it will take is a memo from NIOSH saying 

3 this is covered in 6.3. 

4 MR. KATZ: Right. All I'm saying 

5 is that, rather than await a memo from NIOSH 

6 saying look at 6.3, except for this other 

7 item, SC&A can look at 6.3 now and come to the 

8 table, agreeing or not agreeing with --

9 CHAIR MUNN: I certainly have no 

10 objection to them looking at it right now and 

11 agreeing that it's okay. 

12 (Laughter.) 

13 MR. KATZ: I don't mean now at the 

14 table while we're sitting here. I just mean 

15 it doesn't need to await a NIOSH response, it 

16 seems. 

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, the way I see it, 

18 this will be NIOSH recommending something. 

19 SC&A, take a look at 6.3. See if, in fact, it 

20 resolves most of your concerns. 

21 There's still, I guess, a question 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

121 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 on the table related -- I don't know what 

2 number it is -- related to 6.3. I'd like to 

3 hear what that is. You know, what is the 

4 nuance with regard to 6.3 that maybe we still 

5 need a little bit more evidence to be 

6 expounded? 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

8 DR. MAURO: So, maybe that's where 

9 we should be right now, just to talk about 

10 that issue. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So, I'm going 

12 to record the current action is SC&A's going 

13 to look at the OTIB to verify that that has is 

14 covered in the document. 

15 MEMBER LEMEN: That's 6.3. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: It's 6.3, correct. 

17 MEMBER LEMEN: That's for No. 14. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: That's No. 14. 

19 Now the next item, which I don't 

20 have up, 15. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Fifteen is basically 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

122 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 -- we can read the finding. It's a reactor 

2 source term finding. "Some radionuclides were 

3 not released in significant quantities for all 

4 four reactor types. The average source term 

5 for those radionuclides as listed in Table E-2 

6 (default source terms) underestimates the 

7 value given in Table E-1, Simplified Source 

8 Terms." 

9 And the NIOSH response was to see 

10 Comment 14, and the SC&A response or reply 

11 was, basically, keep it in progress, just like 

12 Comment 14. So, basically, 15 tracks 14. 

13 MEMBER LEMEN: Fifteen what? 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Fifteen, the comment 

15 and the response to 15 would follow the 

16 response and the resolution to 14. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So, we'll just 

18 include 15 in our --

19 DR. ULSH: So, is the action still 

20 the same then? For 14, SC&A is looking at 

21 Section 6.3. Should we put that, also, as the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

123 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 status on 15 in terms of the action item? Is 

2 that what you're saying? 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: On 14, ORAU still 

5 is writing a response. ORAU's writing a 

6 response on 14. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, both NIOSH and 

8 SC&A have a response for 14, is my 

9 understanding. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

11 MEMBER LEMEN: So, we're coming 

12 back to those at a later Board meeting? 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

14 MEMBER LEMEN: Or a later 

15 Subcommittee meeting? 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Next time we'll do 14 

17 and 15 --

18 MEMBER LEMEN: Got you. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: And 16. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Sixteen, at the last 

21 meeting we had it as in progress. And as per 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

124 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Steve Ostrow's review of the NIOSH response, 

2 we are recommending a change to in abeyance. 

3 Do you want me to read the finding? 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Steve, this is 

5 Mark Griffon. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: On No. 16, I'm 

8 unclear why that would be in abeyance. The 

9 NIOSH response says they're in the process of 

10 establishing appropriate methods to assess the 

11 sources of uncertainty. It doesn't sound like 

12 it's just a simple thing of, yes, we'll add 

13 this language. Am I misunderstanding that? 

14 It doesn't seem like a simple change to the 

15 procedure. It seems like a little more than 

16 that. How do we know that we're in agreement 

17 with what they're going to come up with for 

18 addressing the uncertainty? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think you're 

20 right, Mark. I think in progress should be --

21 MR. MARSCHKE: It should remain in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

125 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 progress. I would agree. 

2 Steve Ostrow, do you want to say 

3 anything? 

4 DR. OSTROW: No. I'm just having 

5 sort of a mental lapse of why I put down in 

6 abeyance. It should be in progress. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: In progress. Good 

8 catch, Mark. 

9 DR. MAURO: So, this is John. 

10 Just to make it clear, it sounds 

11 like we're still talking about the same 

12 subject. In other words, even though we have 

13 these different items -- they're all really 

14 the same, and what it is is SC&A go back, take 

15 another look at 6.3; see if, in fact, it 

16 provides a pretty compelling argument. 

17 Meanwhile, it sounds like NIOSH, 

18 they're still looking at it, at some of the 

19 assumptions, and you're putting some material 

20 together that will enrich your case in 6.3. 

21 And when we both finish doing what 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

126 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 we're doing, we'll be in a position to close 

2 all these out. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. Yes, because 

4 it does look like we have read 6.3, and we 

5 don't agree with the conclusion that the 

6 default source term produces an upper bound. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Are we at 17? 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Now 17, 18, 19 --

9 CHAIR MUNN: Do not have anything 

10 new? 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: We're probably are 

12 going to want to wait until maybe Joyce gets 

13 on the phone this afternoon. 

14 If I'm not incorrect, Steve, you've 

15 left these blank because you feel that you 

16 want to get Joyce's input? 

17 DR. OSTROW: Yes, that's true. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Well, 17's in 

19 progress. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: On the database, 

21 it's showing as being, yes --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

127 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Eighteen is closed. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Eighteen is closed? 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And 19's in 

4 progress. 

5 MEMBER LEMEN: Where do you see 18 

6 is closed? I don't see that. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: It's on the 

8 database. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: On the database 

10 itself. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: On the database. 

12 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay. We've got two 

13 documents going. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: We've got two 

15 documents going. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Nineteen is in 

17 progress. 

18 Twenty's in progress. 

19 Twenty-one, in progress. 

20 Twenty-two, in abeyance. 

21 MEMBER LEMEN: I thought 21 -- 20 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

128 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 says in abeyance on this one. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, Steve has 

3 basically got an update on the recommendation 

4 for 20 from what it was at the last time. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Excellent. 

6 MEMBER LEMEN: So, it's not in 

7 abeyance. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, 20 is --

9 DR. ULSH: We're jumping around a 

10 bit. 

11 I don't know what the status is, 

12 the current status is for 17. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: The current status 

14 for 17, the current status is 17 is in 

15 progress; 18 is closed; 19 is in progress. 

16 DR. ULSH: Okay. Thanks. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Twenty is in 

18 progress. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: We have something new 

20 on 20. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Seventeen, 18, and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

129 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 19, we don't have anything new on. Twenty is 

2 in progress, but we do have a new 

3 recommendation from Steve in response to the 

4 NIOSH response. 

5 And, basically, if you want me to 

6 read it, Wanda? 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: The comment has to 

9 do with the urinalysis. "SC&A cannot 

10 reproduce the percentages listed in Table G-1 

11 to G-4 following the procedure described by 

12 NIOSH, with the values listed for strontium-90 

13 presenting the greatest difference. On the 

14 other hand, Table 7-1, values for strontium-90 

15 were reproduced using SC&A-derived values, but 

16 not using Table G-2 values." 

17 The NIOSH response was, "We, too, 

18 noted the issues with the attachment G data, 

19 and a revision is in progress to correct it. 

20 This will also affect the values in Table 7-2. 

21 In addition, some of the IRF values used will 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 also be revised." 

2 And the SC&A reply was, "Accepted. 

3 NIOSH to make indicated changes in next 

4 revision." 

5 And the recommended status change 

6 is in abeyance. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Any problem with that? 

8 (No response.) 

9 Let's accept in abeyance and change 

10 it? 

11 MEMBER LEMEN: And change it? I 

12 thought it was in abeyance. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we have to 

14 accept it --

15 MEMBER LEMEN: On that one? So, 

16 we're changing it on the big chart? 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, uh-hum, from in 

18 progress to in abeyance. 

19 No. 22 or 21. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Twenty one, the 

21 status was in progress. Steve has looked at 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

131 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 it since the last meeting, and he has accepted 

2 the NIOSH response and recommends it being 

3 changed to closed. 

4 The comment is regarding the 

5 urinalysis. "The radionuclides listed in 

6 Tables G-1 to G-4 are the ones taken from 

7 Table D-1. And the simplifications introduced 

8 in Tables E-1 and E-2 were not used." 

9 The NIOSH response was, "That is 

10 correct. The simplified source terms given in 

11 attachment E are the basis for Tables 7-3 and 

12 7-4. Attachment G in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 are 

13 based on the nuclide mix given in Table D-1." 

14 And as I said before, SC&A has 

15 accepted that response and recommends that 

16 this issue be closed. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection to 

18 closing this issue? 

19 (No response.) 

20 Done. 

21 MR. KATZ: I just have a process 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

132 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 question about we went through a number of 

2 items that are in progress, but there's 

3 nothing new to report. So, we just whizzed by 

4 them. But my process question is, do we need 

5 to sort of question as to what's going on or 

6 when something is going to be delivered on 

7 these in progress items? Or do we just sort 

8 of flip through them and ignore them? 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't know 

10 that I'll be able to give you a date on this 

11 or a --

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Schedule today. I 

14 mean most of these in progress things, since 

15 Steve Ostrow has commented on and said your 

16 initial response wasn't convincing, 

17 essentially, those are back in our court. And 

18 today I just don't know --

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: That I can provide 

21 a schedule. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

133 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. MAURO: This is John. 

2 I was thinking the same thing in 

3 terms of, who has the action? When it's in 

4 progress and it's blank -- I remember reading 

5 it; I don't have it in front of me right 

6 now -- I wasn't quite sure who has the ball 

7 right now. Is it the onus on SC&A to make a 

8 case of what the problem is or --

9 CHAIR MUNN: No. No, whenever a 

10 case is in progress, it means we have agreed 

11 on what needs to be -- we have discussed what 

12 is being done; NIOSH is addressing it. 

13 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, that 

14 means --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, actually, 

16 it's the person who most recently provided 

17 input to the discussion is off the hook until 

18 the other party provides it. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: So, in this case, 

21 for these, since SC&A most recently provided 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

134 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 the input to the discussion, that puts us on 

2 the hook. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: There's the one 

5 exception of 14 we're going to look at that 

6 16.3 to see if it helps. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

8 DR. MAURO: Okay. Got it. Good. 

9 Thank you. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Item 22. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Item 22. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: The Subcommittee 

13 revised to in abeyance. There is no change 

14 there, is there? 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think so. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: And 23. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Twenty-three --

18 CHAIR MUNN: There's a new comment 

19 from SC&A. I think all we need to do, I think 

20 we have the two preceding comments. We need 

21 to read SC&A's response to NIOSH's response. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

135 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 SC&A now says -- would you like to 

2 read that, Steve? 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: "NIOSH's statements 

4 hear that OTIB-54 was never intended to 

5 provide anything more than a favorable 

6 overestimate and that doses should be assigned 

7 as upper bounds are not reflected in the text 

8 in the OTIB. For example, one would expect 

9 that this interpretation would appear in 

10 Sections 2, (Purpose), and 3, (Scope). 

11 Further discussion is required to clarify that 

12 the OTIB should and should not" -- excuse me 

13 -- "Further discussion is required to clarify 

14 what the OTIB should and should not be used 

15 for. SC&A recommends that the issue remain in 

16 progress." 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Any argument about 

18 that? The ball is in the NIOSH court. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's 

20 relatively clear. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

136 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. MARSCHKE: And I think the same 

2 is true for issues 24 and 25 and 26. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: There's nothing new 

4 from SC&A. Just they remain open, in 

5 progress. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: For the same reason 

7 that 23 remains open and in progress. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Right. Okay. 

9 So, 24, 25, 26, which brings us to the end of 

10 OTIB-54. 

11 Does anyone else have any 

12 commentary or any argument they want to make 

13 with respect to what we just did with 54? 

14 MEMBER LEMEN: All the remainder 

15 will stay in progress? Is that what you're 

16 saying? 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: And we're going to 

19 come back this afternoon and revisit 17, 18, 

20 and 19, when Joyce is on the phone perhaps. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

137 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, 18 we already 

2 said was closed. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. Seventeen and 

4 19. I'm sorry. 

5 DR. MAURO: Steve, one of the 

6 things that I always appreciated before when 

7 we were running the software is being able to 

8 update, you know, how many did we close. Now 

9 what did we accomplish? It sounds like we did 

10 a lot on 54. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: We did. 

12 DR. MAURO: Are you able to do 

13 those kinds of runs again or --

14 MR. MARSCHKE: No. 

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: That's one of the 

17 capabilities we lost since last October. 

18 DR. MAURO: Okay. But it sounds 

19 like, it was 26 issues, and it sounds like a 

20 bunch of them have been either put in abeyance 

21 or closed. So, I mean, there's some good news 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

138 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 here. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Some of them had 

3 already been put in abeyance and closed. 

4 DR. MAURO: Oh, they were already 

5 there? Okay. Never mind. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, NIOSH loaded us 

7 up with responses last time. 

8 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: So, thank you all, and 

10 we need a break. Fifteen minutes max, which 

11 puts us back here at 11:20. 

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. Folks, I'm just 

13 putting the phone on mute. 

14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

15 matter went off the record at 11:03 a.m. and 

16 resumed at 11:22 a.m.) 

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, we're back 

18 together. 

19 Folks on the phone, do we have you, 

20 too? 

21 Okay, Wanda? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

139 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: The next item we have 

2 on our agenda is the OTIB-13 issues. 

3 DR. ULSH: It's OCAS-TIB-13. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I'm sorry, 

5 OCAS-TIB-13. I'm sorry. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Since the last 

7 meeting, I believe NIOSH has revised or 

8 OCAS-TIB-13 has been revised. I can find out. 

9 I know --

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Steve, this is 

11 Mark Griffon. I'm sorry to interrupt. 

12 Was there a handout that you sent? 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm getting to that, 

14 Mark. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. 

16 Sorry. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: And SC&A has looked 

18 at the revised TIB-13, and we have made some 

19 comments and recommendations on the revision. 

20 And yesterday, part of that email, when I 

21 sent out six files, one of the files was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

140 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 included called OCAS-TIB-13SC&AREPLY.DOC, and 

2 it includes the history of the OCAS-TIB-13 

3 comments up through Comment No. 5 or 6, up 

4 through Comment No. 6. 

5 And Bob Anigstein was the one at 

6 SC&A who looked over the revised OTIB, not 

7 OTIB, TIB-13, and evaluated the resolution of 

8 the SC&A comments. 

9 And, Bob, are you on the phone? 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I am. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: And so, do you want 

12 to discuss the results of your review? 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure. Well, the 

14 comments, the first two comments were 

15 basically editorial and we accepted the 

16 changes. In other words, we had comments on 

17 how the -- I'm sure everybody here knows we 

18 have a set procedure which we follow when 

19 reviewing the various TIBs and OTIBs, and we 

20 look at things like: is it well-written; is 

21 it well-organized, is it understandable? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

141 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 So, we had some editorial comments, 

2 and those were resolved. The revised TIB is 

3 much more sort of longer. It's clearer. It 

4 has diagrams and illustrations. So, those 

5 were adequately answered. 

6 However, we still have the 

7 technical comments. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Can I stop you for a 

9 minute, Bob? 

10 So, I mean, Wanda, on Issue No. 1 

11 and Issue No. 2, SC&A is recommending the 

12 status be changed from in abeyance to closed. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Is there any objection 

14 to closing those two? 

15 (No response.) 

16 If not, done. No. 1, closed; Issue 

17 2, closed. 

18 Now Bob is talking about No. 3, 

19 right? 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Correct. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Go ahead, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

142 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Bob. 

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Well, No. 3 

3 is our position, or at least my position, is 

4 that any analysis should be reproducible. 

5 Enough information should be given that 

6 another knowledgeable person with the right 

7 tools can reproduce the results. 

8 And we were still not given enough 

9 information, at least not in print form. We 

10 were given privately -- we communicated back 

11 in 2007. Greg Macievic did give us some more 

12 information as to the parameters that he was 

13 using. But it was still not quite adequate. 

14 Okay. The issue, or at least one 

15 of the issues we raised was, in Issue 3, in 

16 response to Issue 3, that the wrong photon 

17 spectrum was used. There was the decay scheme 

18 of uranium-238 was not correctly interpreted. 

19 Subsequent to this, I did some MCNP 

20 runs myself, actually, yesterday evening. And 

21 it turns that the ratio that we found of the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

143 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 dose to the torso and the dose to the lapel, 

2 to the film badge, in fact, was not affected 

3 by changing the spectrum at least to what is 

4 the correct spectrum that was used. The 

5 difference was within the statistics. 

6 So, that comment in this particular 

7 instance does not change the result. We still 

8 feel that, for appearance's sake, which should 

9 be the scientifically-correct, physics, 

10 nuclear physics should be incorporated. But 

11 we don't consider this a serious issue. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: What do we recommend 

13 the status change, basically, Bob, at this 

14 point on this? I'm confused. 

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Indeed. Well, the 

16 geometry, the given information, the material, 

17 the source materials, okay -- no, I would say 

18 it's resolved. I would accept it as closed. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: So, we're 

20 recommending --

21 CHAIR MUNN: So, you'll have to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

144 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 excuse the Chair. I seem to be reading an 

2 entirely different finding. That's because 

3 this has gone to an entirely incorrect 

4 procedure. That makes it rather difficult. 

5 I'll have to try again. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, while you're 

7 looking, could I ask, just for clarification? 

8 Bob, this is Ziemer. 

9 You were somewhat concerned about 

10 the location of the film badge on this one, 

11 and the geometry? 

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, that, too. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: But did you 

14 ascertain, then, that in the final analysis, 

15 that wouldn't affect the results very much? 

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. No. Perhaps 

17 that's more an issue -- I think I'm getting a 

18 little on the question of which issue -- the 

19 Issue 3 was that they did not give, they did 

20 not specify how they did it. So, there are 

21 diagrams that accompanied the revised 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

145 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 procedure which do, in fact, specify. You 

2 can calculate even. You know, it gives enough 

3 information there that you can do a little 

4 geometry, apply a little trigonometry, and any 

5 missing parameter can be very easily 

6 calculated. That could be accommodated. 

7 So, the first three are matters of 

8 presentation. It doesn't mean we agree with 

9 the results. It just means that we accept the 

10 fact that, yes, they were clearly presented 

11 and that the fact that the spectrum is not 

12 presented, even though it was privately 

13 communicated to us, is not presented does not 

14 constitute a problem because it does not 

15 really -- in fact, it does affect the results. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I'm looking 

17 at the statement that -- I thought this was 

18 the bottom line. It said, "We do not agree 

19 with the above NIOSH statement that the 

20 correction is dependent only on geometry." 

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, exactly. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

146 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that still an 

2 issue or, when you say you recommend closing 

3 this --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I went back 

5 and did a reanalysis using exactly the same 

6 geometry. And before, we had done two sets of 

7 analyses. We had done one analysis to attempt 

8 to reproduce the Attila results. In our 

9 writeup -- it's not in this summary, but in 

10 the big document, where all the TIBs are 

11 reviewed -- we have a table. This is Section 

12 2.7 that discusses TIB-13. So, we have a 

13 Table 2.7.2 where we ran the MCNP using the 

14 same spectrum, the same photon spectrum that 

15 NIOSH had used. And we get a very different 

16 result than the Attila result that is 

17 published here. 

18 Then, we went and did it the way we 

19 thought it really should be done, and we have 

20 another table at 2.7.3 where we give the 

21 results. The only thing I did subsequent to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

147 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 that was I went back and I basically redid 

2 what is Table 2.7 -- I redid the -- we first 

3 replicated the Attila results. We're trying 

4 to replicate the Attila results using the 

5 geometry that we understood to be the case, 

6 using the photon spectrum furnished by NIOSH. 

7 So, I redid it leaving everything the same, 

8 but changing the photon spectrum to what we 

9 believe is the correct uranium spectrum. 

10 And it turns out that there is no 

11 significant difference in the ratio. There is 

12 the absolute dose rate, but if you take the 

13 ratio of the dose at the torso, at the nearest 

14 point to the ingot at the surface, that's the 

15 dose that the film badge would register if it 

16 had been in that position. It's the Hp10 

17 dose, the Hp10 comma 0. No angular 

18 dependence, but just the dose. The Hp10 is 

19 simply the dose to the ICRU slab at 10 

20 millimeters below the surface, which is what 

21 the film badge at least is supposed to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

148 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 calibrated to. 

2 And, then, we did the same thing 

3 with the film badge at the lapel, and we got 

4 the ratio for the ingot of 7.6; whereas, the 

5 Attila results reported by NIOSH were 2.125. 

6 So, to see whether the energy of 

7 the photons played a role, I redid that using, 

8 simply taking exactly the same input file, but 

9 taking out the NIOSH spectrum and putting in 

10 our own spectrum, which is based on what we 

11 believe is the correct nuclear physics. And 

12 we got essentially the same, the same ratio, 

13 not the same doses absolute, but the ratio of 

14 7.6 plus/minus statistical error. 

15 So, I wrote that comment, and I now 

16 wish to correct it. The correction I wouldn't 

17 say is dependent only on geometry, but at 

18 least changing the spectrum from the incorrect 

19 mix of isotopes to a corrected mix of isotopes 

20 does not change the results in this instance. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

149 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. MARSCHKE: So, we owe the 

2 Subcommittee a revised reply to this Issue 3? 

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Correct. Correct. 

4 DR. MAURO: And your 

5 recommendation, given that -- given the new 

6 words, language, is to close the issue? In 

7 other words, in the end, I understand Issue 3, 

8 you're comfortable that we could either 

9 withdraw or close the issue, that this matter 

10 of the spectrum really wasn't important? 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's what I 

12 heard. 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Let me just go back 

14 to the original statement. 

15 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The original 

17 statement in our original report, the October 

18 report which has review objective 1.3 -- "The 

19 TIB is not clear on the methodology and 

20 parameters assumed in the NIOSH Atilla 

21 calculation." Important parameters, geometry, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

150 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 height were not included; source geometry were 

2 not included. And more exact input parameters 

3 were obtained in private communication. 

4 So, it is now clear that the 

5 parameters are in the revised TIB. And, 

6 really, this issue did not deal with whether 

7 this photon spectrum is correct or not. I 

8 wrote that in in this summary because the 

9 response to it said the photon spectrum 

10 doesn't matter. So, the issue sort got 

11 expanded perhaps where it wasn't supposed to 

12 go. 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, Bob, right now I'm 

14 looking at Steve's email that he sent out, and 

15 I'm looking at TIB-13, No. 3. 

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I know. 

17 DR. MAURO: Okay. Good. 

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But that's not what 

19 I'm talking about. What happened here was 

20 that this is a mixture of mixing the issues. 

21 This statement is not really part of, the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

151 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 discussion of the correct spectrum is really 

2 not part of Issue 3. 

3 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. 

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Issue 3 was only, 

5 Review Objective 1.3 was really whether there 

6 was enough detail given in the TIB. 

7 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And the revised TIB 

9 does, in fact, have enough detail. 

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: So, the bottom line is 

12 we do not have an article for the journal of 

13 their reproducible results. We accept the 

14 information as being valid, and what we need 

15 is a corrected statement from SC&A with 

16 respect to Item No. 3 for TIB-13? And if we 

17 have that corrected statement, then we can 

18 change this item to closed? 

19 Yes, Paul? 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just a request for 

21 John or Bob. This document that was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

152 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 distributed is undated. I don't know if it 

2 shows up in the system anywhere. But if it 

3 gets disattached from the email, which I often 

4 file these documents separately, I would 

5 appreciate having, on the next version, having 

6 a date on this document. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Understood, Paul. 

8 The document, all the documents that were 

9 transmitted, that I transmitted yesterday, are 

10 more or less internal SC&A working documents. 

11 And, really, what I should be doing --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, but when they 

13 come to us, I've got to do something with it. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: It can easily 

16 lose --

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Understood. So, we 

18 will put the --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Yes, just 

20 identify it. Even if it's an internal 

21 document, you could put "Distributed to the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

153 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Board on" a certain date. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: What we would 

3 anticipate doing is taking Bob's response here 

4 and putting it into the database. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: And this document 

7 will disappear from the universe. 

8 (Laughter.) 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it doesn't 

10 really. You should hope. 

11 (Laughter.) 

12 That's fine. It's just helpful --

13 MR. MARSCHKE: We will put, we will 

14 try to --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: To always have 

16 dates on whatever it is we have. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I will make up 

18 -- yes. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: This item will carry 

20 over to our next meeting, just so that we can 

21 see SC&A's corrected rewrite of response to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

154 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 No. 3. At that time, we will close it. For 

2 the moment, it remains in abeyance. 

3 The next item, Item 4. 

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, okay. Item 4 

5 and Item 6 are repetitive, simply because our 

6 procedures are such that the same issue fell 

7 into two different review objectives of our 

8 procedures. So, it was mentioned twice, 

9 actually. It was initially mentioned under 

10 2.2, but, then, in the statement in our 

11 official document, October 2007, it simply 

12 says, "See Review Objective 7.3," where it is 

13 discussed in greater detail. 

14 And the main point that, and then 

15 if we skip over, if I may, I would like to 

16 skip over Issue 4 for a second because it 

17 really discusses this on 6. And the reason 

18 for the sequence would be Issue 5 partially 

19 should really be discussed first. 

20 And Issue 5 refers to, now that we 

21 know what the geometry was, is it appropriate? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

155 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 And the answer is that, for two reasons, we 

2 find that the geometry needs to be either 

3 revised or justified. 

4 One is the size of the worker. 

5 It's not clear, I honestly, by looking at the 

6 diagrams and trying to do -- some dimensions 

7 are given. Taking my ruler and scaling it, I 

8 found it hard to determine what the worker's 

9 height was. It stated in the report, though, 

10 that it's 6 feet. So, I will accept that. 

11 And using the philosophy that we 

12 want to cover all workers, or at least the 95 

13 percent of the workers, 6 feet doesn't do it. 

14 Six feet is not even the 90th percentile. 

15 The 90th percentile is 6 feet 1.6 inches, if 

16 you will, and the 95th percentile, because 

17 having the mean in the 90th percentile, we can 

18 derive the 95th, it would be 6 foot 3. So, 

19 that would be slightly more claimant-favorable 

20 because you could have workers that were that 

21 tall. That's not remarkable for an American 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

156 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 male. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: For that period, 

3 though, it is rather. 

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me? 

5 CHAIR MUNN: For that period, it is 

6 rather. 

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: I said, for the period 

9 that we look at, that is to say, the last half 

10 of the 20th century is essentially what we're 

11 looking at when we work here, and a 6 foot 3 

12 male was highly unusual. 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I see. Yes, well, 

14 the heights have increased. I was quoting a 

15 1987 document from the Department of Health 

16 and Human Services where it gave these 

17 statistics. So, again, if it was printed in 

18 1987, it was probably data collected in, say, 

19 the earlier 1980s. Again, we're talking about 

20 95th percentile, which, again, is already 1 

21 out of 20. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

157 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. ULSH: So, if I understand 

2 correctly, we have said 6 foot 0, and you're 

3 saying it should be 6 foot 3, I think you 

4 said? 

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. And, then, 

6 the other is the position of the film badge, 

7 the assumed position of the film badge, is not 

8 really discussed. It is not really going into 

9 any anatomy or realistic photographs and 

10 saying, where would a film badge be worn? So, 

11 we say the film badge would be worn, here they 

12 have it in the middle of the chest. The 

13 reality is it could be worn on the lapel, 

14 which is off to one side, which, again, gives 

15 a little more distance. 

16 It's simply not justified. It 

17 didn't say we took this diagram, we measured 

18 it, or we took a volunteer, a couple of staff 

19 members, and, you know, took some measurements 

20 with a tape measure, or however they wish to 

21 do it. It is just a given. It is not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

158 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 justified; it's not discussed. 

2 And we feel it should be better 

3 documented and perhaps changed because I think 

4 the lapel, obviously, is to one side and not 

5 in the center. So that, again, gives a small, 

6 small but not necessarily negligible, effect. 

7 So, these are the objections in 5, 

8 the geometry needs to be justified, explained. 

9 Why do we take these values? How did we come 

10 up with it? Or, if there's not good 

11 justification or it should be rethought, 

12 repositioned --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Dr. Ziemer? 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a question. 

15 This is for NIOSH as a starting point. The 

16 assumption of 6 feet, were you assuming that 

17 that was a 95th percentile for a population? 

18 It's not clear to me that you're obligated to 

19 assume a 95th or any particular, 90th or 95th, 

20 in selecting that parameter, even though one 

21 might argue that geometries become more 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

159 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 favorable. But, again, that also depends on 

2 where the source is compared to the individual 

3 as well. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, there's a lot 

6 of other issues that come into play. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this really 

8 wasn't approached with that sort of rigor that 

9 we're going to choose the 95th percentile 

10 height because that will give us this bounding 

11 estimate. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess you have to 

14 take a look at how's this going to change 

15 between -- you know, how does our adjustment 

16 factor change between 60 and 63, or whatever 

17 you choose. 

18 To me, this is an adjustment for --

19 certain specific geometries that were at 

20 Mallinckrodt. You know, there's a spill on 

21 the floor, so you have radiation from a spill 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

160 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 on the floor. You have radiation from, I 

2 think, a machine, an ingot, and I don't even 

3 remember the third. I think maybe there were 

4 three. 

5 And it was not recognizing that the 

6 workforce is going to vary from 5 feet tall to 

7 6 feet 8 probably because there would be women 

8 in the workforce, too, at some point. Because 

9 we're doing dose reconstructions right up to 

10 people working today, although Mallinckrodt 

11 finished up long ago. I don't know. Maybe 

12 we're not dealing with women. 

13 But you're going to have this 

14 range. You know, what are you going to pick? 

15 I guess we never really thought to go check 

16 the root or do the rigor of a 95th percentile. 

17 We tried to present a representative number 

18 to make these adjustments to the film badge 

19 reading. 

20 And I guess there's certainly an 

21 argument to be made for rigor and doing things 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

161 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 like that, but, by and large, it was, well, a 

2 good point was raised that in a situation like 

3 Mallinckrodt there were a number of geometries 

4 that were perhaps different than your normal 

5 work geometry, and so what would that mean in 

6 terms of diagnoses? 

7 Really, if the sources are low, it 

8 would be diagnoses to cancers in the lower 

9 part of the body, where you would have an 

10 upward adjustment on the film badge. I don't 

11 know that we would ever make a downward 

12 adjustment on a film badge based on the 

13 geometric consideration, you know, someone 

14 diagnosed in their head and having exposure on 

15 the floor. 

16 So, it was not approached with that 

17 sort of rigor. That's just a fact. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Is it fair to request 

19 a response from NIOSH to this Item 5 

20 commentary from SC&A? Is what we are hearing 

21 a position that further explanation or further 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

162 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 justification is called for? Is that what I'm 

2 hearing? 

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Is it fair 

5 to ask for that from NIOSH? 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: We can write 

7 something, sure. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

9 DR. MAURO: This is John. 

10 I just want to step back a little 

11 bit because, when I was reading this earlier, 

12 I noticed that there was a fairly large 

13 difference in the adjustment factor that we 

14 came up with and that NIOSH came up with. 

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, yes. John, I'm 

16 getting to that. 

17 DR. MAURO: Well, yes. 

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I just wanted to 

19 get the minor things out of the way first. 

20 DR. MAURO: Yes. Quite frankly, I 

21 would be frank, I don't think this issue is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

163 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 important, you know, the 6'3 versus 6 feet, 

2 whether it's the lapel, the center of chest or 

3 the lapel. 

4 It's unfortunate that we teased it 

5 out and we're going to issue, you know, one, 

6 two, three. The big picture is that we do 

7 have a substantial difference in terms of what 

8 the adjustment factor is, and I think we've 

9 got to go there. 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, I was getting 

11 to that. 

12 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Yes. 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I just wanted to 

14 get these out of the way. That's what I said; 

15 that would be No. 6. 

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Yes. 

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's the 

18 significant, that's the big one. 

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. Thank you. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: This is the 3, 4, 6 

21 that we're talking about now, right? Items 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

164 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 No. 3, No. 4, and No. 6 all essentially bear 

2 on the same issue you're about to address? 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Actually, 4 and 6. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Four and 6? 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: And actually, in the 

6 database, we have already changed the status 

7 of Issue 6 to be addressed in Finding 4. So, 

8 we've kind of already acknowledged that these 

9 two or the Subcommittee has already 

10 acknowledged that these two issues are the 

11 same. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: So, we can focus on 4? 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: And we're saying 

14 focus on --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, whichever 

16 one. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Whichever one. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: It's the same 

19 finding. However you want to strike to it, 

20 whichever one. 

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Steve, I just took 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

165 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 5 first just to get it out of the way because 

2 it's minor. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Understood. 

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And, then, to focus 

5 on the major one. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Understood. But, 

7 right now, we're going to leave that as --

8 well, it was in abeyance. 

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't know why it 

11 was in abeyance. It should probably be in 

12 progress. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: It should be in 

14 progress probably. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: So, we'll change 

16 that from in abeyance back to in progress, and 

17 NIOSH will give us an expanded explanation as 

18 to 6 foot versus 6 foot 3 inches and/or the 

19 badge placement, their rationale for the 

20 selection of the badge placement. I believe 

21 those were the two main thrusts of your 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

166 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 writeup, Bob. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: All right. So, we 

3 have SC&A rewrites on No. 3 and No. 4. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: No. 5. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: No. 5. No, No. 5 is 

6 NIOSH action. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: No. 5 is NIOSH 

8 action. No. 4 is, if you go back and look at 

9 the email that transmitted the revised TIB-13, 

10 there is no claim by NIOSH that the revision 

11 addressed Issues 4 or 6. So, the revision 

12 really did not address Issues 4 or 6. 

13 So, that being said, what we were 

14 instructed to do at the July 26th meeting was 

15 the Subcommittee instructed SC&A to review the 

16 NIOSH initial response. And so, that's 

17 basically what Bob has done. 

18 And so, I guess, with that, Bob, 

19 it's back to you. 

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Okay, so 

21 going on to Issue 6, which is really the heart 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

167 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 of the matter. The heart of the matter is 

2 that we get very, very different results. 

3 Perhaps NIOSH could explain. I'm not claiming 

4 that the Attila code is defective because we 

5 have no access to it. One of the comments we 

6 made the first time we ran across this in 

7 reviewing TIB-10, the glovebox workers is 

8 that, whereas MCNP is easily available, anyone 

9 can purchase it from RSICC, anyone who is not 

10 a foreign agent, and so forth, can purchase it 

11 from RSICC, and there are probably thousands 

12 of people in the United States who are 

13 familiar with it and can run it -- now an 

14 associate of ours, formerly with Los Alamos 

15 staff, Richard Olsher, gives a training course 

16 several times a year, including I think he 

17 even trained some the ORAU staff. 

18 Whereas the Atilla code, we looked 

19 into it when we first ran across it, and it 

20 turns out that you can't even buy it; you have 

21 to license it, and the license costs $30,000 a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

168 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 year. So, SC&A did not feel it was justified 

2 or reasonable for us to acquire that code. 

3 So, it certainly has a much more limited user 

4 base than MCNP. And the same for why NIOSH is 

5 using it; it has some conveniences. 

6 So, we can't comment. We have not 

7 verified it. We have not seen the validation, 

8 V&V, verification and validation documents for 

9 Attila. So, we just have no way of judging 

10 it. 

11 But we do have a way of judging it 

12 by doing these parallel cases. I am going to 

13 ask now, this ratio of -- I've got a question 

14 to NIOSH -- this is ratio of 2.125 for the 

15 lower torso to the lapel badge, does that 

16 consist of a ratio of doses at two points or 

17 was there a range of points and this 

18 represents some kind of an average? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

20 Hinnefeld. 

21 I don't know. Brant, I suppose you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

169 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 don't know, either? 

2 DR. ULSH: No. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, our principal 

4 person isn't available today, on this document 

5 isn't available. So, we'll have to take the 

6 question back and learn more about it. 

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's a little risky 

8 to speculate, but I know that the first time 

9 we ran across the use of Attila in TIB-10, 

10 they did, in fact, and it's even one of the 

11 responses to our, you know, this back-and12 forth that Steve distributed in this email. 

13 It does talk about using the 

14 crystal ball, which is the Monte Carlo add-on 

15 to Excel, to use to get a range. You can do 

16 statistics. You get the average, the standard 

17 deviation, and so forth, any kind of statistic 

18 you want. 

19 And the only reasonable explanation 

20 I can come up with why it is so different is 

21 that they simply took the doses at the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

170 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 position of various organs, some of which were 

2 near the ingot, some of which were further 

3 from the ingot, and took an average of those 

4 and compared that to the lapel badge. And I 

5 could see where they could come up with a 

6 ratio of two or a ratio of anything, depending 

7 on how the organs were chosen. 

8 But what we picked was, taking the 

9 diagram furnished, originally furnished 

10 privately and now the same diagram appears in 

11 the revised TIB, and we took the point nearest 

12 to the ingot. This itself is about an inch or 

13 so air space. I'm going by memory. On the 

14 order of an inch. It would be a few 

15 centimeters. 

16 And, then, we took the counts at 

17 two points. And the reason, the rationale for 

18 that would be that, after all, in the end, the 

19 NIOSH procedure, the OCAS one, I believe, 

20 procedure is to take assumed badge readings 

21 and assume, one of the assumptions, one of the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

171 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 inputs -- there are several different 

2 possibilities, but Hp10 is one of them. You 

3 take Hp10 and say, okay, this is the dose; 

4 this is the Hp10 dose. Then, we're evaluating 

5 a cancer of the stomach. 

6 Then, you look up in the ICRP-74 

7 tables or at least there is sort of a summary 

8 of the ICRP-74, those conversions, those 

9 coefficients in OCAS-1, and say, okay, this is 

10 the multiplier. You take this reading or this 

11 dose estimate, if it's modeled, an exposure --

12 one of these AWE sites where you don't have 

13 dosimeters, but we model exposures, and say, 

14 okay, this was the dose at the surface of the 

15 body. This is the organ affected. This is 

16 the ratio of the two. This is how we 

17 calculate the organ dose. 

18 Therefore, we need to say, since we 

19 don't know ahead of time, and the worker 

20 compensation claim does not come in with a 

21 range of, a distribution of organs. It comes 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

172 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 in with specific organs. So, we have to take 

2 the organ that would have the highest dose. 

3 We would take the point on the body 

4 and say, okay, this is the dose here. The 

5 organ dose is going to be calculated from 

6 that, but, in reality, we have measured it up 

7 here on the lapel and this is the ratio. 

8 So, using the NIOSH geometry, we 

9 come up with 7.6 without deliberacy, not 

10 including any correction for the angular 

11 dependence of the film badge. If we do 

12 consider the angular dependence of the film 

13 badge, and it is somewhat a slightly different 

14 geometry with the lapel, but we still didn't 

15 put it in the higher for the worker, but we 

16 did displace the badge 10 centimeters to the 

17 side, we come up with 10.2. I think most of 

18 that effect is probably from the angle rather 

19 than from the additional displacement. 

20 So, we come up with, say, a value 

21 of 10, and NIOSH has a value of 2. And that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

173 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 is really the whole gist of the matter. The 

2 others are minor or relatively minor issues. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Bob, the NIOSH 

4 response, as I look at it here, one of the 

5 sentences that is in there says, "The TIB is 

6 vague on the issue of dose calculation and 

7 must be updated." 

8 Now the revision of the TIB that we 

9 got did not indicate that it addressed Finding 

10 4 or Finding 6. So, I can only assume that it 

11 has not been updated. 

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The numbers are 

13 identical. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: The numbers there 

15 are identical. So, basically, I'm not sure 

16 what NIOSH means when they say the TIB must be 

17 updated, whether it's the calculations must be 

18 updated or just the TIB itself must be made 

19 clearer to explain exactly what was done. 

20 But, by looking at the initial 

21 NIOSH response, something is going to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

174 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 updated here. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and I guess 

3 I'm not in a position to know for sure when 

4 that's going to be. This is ours. This is a 

5 DCAS TIB. So, it's not like I can ask the 

6 ORAU people exactly what they are going to be 

7 doing because this is ours. 

8 So, we will have to just provide it 

9 in our response. I mean we've got two, at 

10 least two unresolved findings, or is it three? 

11 I forget what happened to 5. 

12 DR. ULSH: Four and 6, which are 

13 the same, I guess. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, 4 and 6 are 

15 the same. 

16 DR. ULSH: And something you had to 

17 do on 5. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we had to 

19 do something on 5. So, yes, those findings 

20 out there, we owe them a next round of 

21 discussion for them. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

175 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If I can issue an 

3 opinion, I think 4, 5, and 6 could probably be 

4 rolled into one. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Well, 5 is slightly 

6 different, but 4 and 6 --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But 5 is 

8 explanation of the geometry, and 4 and 6 are 

9 the differences in the calculation. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Well, the Subcommittee 

11 has already put 4 and 6 together, in our view. 

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: And one would be 

14 answered by the other. 

15 So, what I am going to carry over 

16 for our next meeting is that SC&A is going to 

17 rewrite a response to No. 3, and NIOSH will 

18 respond to the SC&A concerns on No. 4 and No. 

19 5. 

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Four and 6 are 

21 virtually, simply the same thing. Because of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

176 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 our procedure, we had to state them, we had to 

2 mention them twice. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: And we have already 

4 indicated that angular dependence of 

5 dosimeters is an overarching issue and not 

6 going to --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but even if 

8 you leave out the angular dependence, we still 

9 have the difference between 2.125 and 7.6. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: I understand. That 

11 was just a superfluous comment on my part. 

12 Dr. Ziemer? 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a question, 

14 Bob. I haven't gone back to your original 

15 analysis to check this out, so maybe you have 

16 already covered it. But can you remind me, in 

17 your analysis, do you assume a point source --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: No? 

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's identical 

21 geometry. It's from the same cylindrical 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

177 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 ingot that is illustrated in the enclosed 

2 diagram. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay. And what 

4 distance is it from -- where's the ingot in 

5 that drawing? 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: It's the circle 

7 right in front of the guy's --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, it's right 

9 close in there. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: From this vantage 

11 we're looking at the end of the ingot. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Bob, we're looking 

13 at the report and we're looking at figure 7.2, 

14 I mean 2.7.A-7, 2.7-1. 

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, and the 

16 distance here is, I think we scaled it. At 

17 that time, it was a little hard to see, but we 

18 did our best to reproduce. We started with 

19 that diagram, which had been furnished to us 

20 earlier by Greg Macievic, and we tried to 

21 represent this in the MCNP run. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

178 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 So, the distance is, I would have 

2 to --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, basically, you 

4 take the sphere or the cylinder and point-by5 point integrate the dose to the point of 

6 interest? 

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's what MCNP 

8 does. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You tell it that 

11 you have a uniform source --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Okay. 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And it randomly 

14 samples throughout the cylinder with some 

15 biasing because the photons in the middle 

16 really rarely get out. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And, then, 

18 for the film badges, it does the same thing, 

19 but gives a value in air, I guess. 

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. In both 

21 cases, what we modeled was we used -- okay, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

179 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 what the MCNP actually calculates is simply 

2 the photon fluence. But this gives you 

3 photons as a function of energy. Then, the 

4 ICRP-74, there is a table, 8.21 perhaps or 

5 .22, which gives the conversion factors from 

6 the fluence -- it's a two-step process. They 

7 give the conversion factors from air kerma, 

8 but another table gives you the conversion 

9 factors of fluence in your kerma. So, we fold 

10 in the two sets, and we enter a set of 

11 conversion factors into MCNP, the MCNP 

12 profile, which takes each photon and converts 

13 it to a dose in picosieverts that correspond 

14 to the energy of that photon interpolated from 

15 the table that was taken from ICRP-74. 

16 So, what we do is we collect, we 

17 calculate the doses at a point, a single 

18 point, to make it. Because you can't 

19 calculate the photon fluence at a point 

20 because it's that zero-plus section. So, what 

21 MCNP does, we can put into our entries. You 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

180 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 take a little sphere --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that's fine. 

3 That's fine. 

4 Sort of intuitively, just looking 

5 at that diagram, I mean in both cases you got 

6 about the same absorption in the ingot. 

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, exactly. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: And just looking at 

9 inverse-square kind of would tell you that a 

10 factor of two seems awfully low. 

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but remember 

12 inverse -- inverse-square really applies only 

13 to a point. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Yes, of 

15 course. Of course, but --

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It falls off a 

17 little more slowly than inverse-square because 

18 you have an extended source. But it is low, I 

19 agree with you. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: I think Paul was 

21 agreeing with you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

181 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I was just 

2 saying, intuitively, if the badge is worn that 

3 high, it just looks like a distance factor by 

4 itself is going to change things quite a bit. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: No, it's going to vary 

6 from one individual to the next. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: There's some other 

8 issues in there, yes. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Lots of people wore 

10 them on lanyards. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: I think we recognize 

13 that there is a problem here, and NIOSH is 

14 going to go back and look into it. 

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And a point of 

16 information, just with my hand calculator, 

17 just by those two distance by inverse-square, 

18 you get a factor of 10. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. 

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And the reason it's 

21 lower than that is because it's not a point 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

182 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 source. So, it falls off a little more 

2 slowly. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: The responsibilities 

5 for responses haven't changed, though. 

6 All right. Let's move on to our 

7 last item before lunch. We were going to --

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Wanda? 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Could I ask you a 

11 question? Is there going to be a discussion 

12 of TIB-10 late in the afternoon? 

13 CHAIR MUNN: We do not have TIB-10 

14 listed until our batch of carryover items, and 

15 our experience has been poor with getting to 

16 carryover items in the last couple of 

17 sessions. If our time permits us, yes, we 

18 will at about four o'clock take up TIB-10, but 

19 I'm not sure that we will get to that. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: The other question 

21 is I don't think we have received the MCNP 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

183 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 runs. I mean that issue was we were going to 

2 look at some MCNP runs that NIOSH had made, 

3 and I don't think we've received them. So, 

4 when we get to it, I don't think anything is 

5 going to happen on TIB-10. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: If you don't have the 

7 information you were going to look at, then, 

8 obviously, that's not going to happen. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Unless those MCNP 

10 runs came in and I wasn't aware of them. That 

11 would be, basically, it is on the schedule, 

12 but there's nothing that is going to really 

13 happen on TIB-10. So, Bob, I think you are 

14 released. 

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Thank you. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: That's right. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that's what 

18 you were trying to get at. 

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Bob. 

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Thank you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

184 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks, Bob. 

2 Our last item was overarching 

3 issues. We talked about trying to identify 

4 what that list contains right now. And who 

5 has --

6 DR. ULSH: I'll take it, if you 

7 would like. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, good. Thank you, 

9 Brant. 

10 DR. ULSH: We do have Jim Neton on 

11 the line also. So, he will correct me or 

12 supplement what I say. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Good. It was our 

14 understanding that Jim was the keeper of the 

15 keys here. 

16 DR. ULSH: Yes. He sent me some 

17 slides that he used the last time this issue 

18 was discussed. And there are a number of 

19 items that are currently identified as 

20 overarching dose reconstruction issues. I 

21 will go through these fairly quickly, and if 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

185 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 you want to go into more detail, we can do 

2 that. 

3 Currently, the list includes 

4 oronasal breathing, is the first one. 

5 Workplace ingestion is the next one. I'll 

6 give you a little time to write if you're 

7 keeping track. Doses from hot particles, 

8 nonstandard external exposures, thoriated 

9 welding rods, interpretation of unworn badges. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: The welding rods 

11 were thoriated? 

12 DR. ULSH: Thoriated. And, then, 

13 interpretation of unworn badges. Only two 

14 more. Material tracking and internal dose 

15 from Super S plutonium. 

16 Now those are the issues that we're 

17 tracking. If there are others that are not on 

18 this list, we would certainly like to hear 

19 about it. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I looked at --

21 we had our TST run a query of findings that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

186 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 were transferred in the database in the 

2 procedures. And the ones that looked to me as 

3 if they are transferred to overarching issues 

4 are oronasal breathing and ingestion, two of 

5 the ones on the list. 

6 It remains to be seen, though, from 

7 dose reconstruction review. Some of you are 

8 on the Dose Reconstruction Review Subcommittee 

9 as well. I think there may be some things 

10 there, and we will need to do a search through 

11 those yet to see if there's anything else on 

12 there that we have not added to the list. So, 

13 we haven't completed that yet. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Well, and we were just 

15 looking at what we were talking about, TIB-13, 

16 we were talking about geometry being an 

17 overarching issue. But don't we have a TIB 

18 that addresses --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no, not the 

20 specific issue of angular dependence of a film 

21 badge. I mean that's kind of a broad issue as 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

187 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 to whether -- because, as a general rule, we 

2 take that the film badge measures the dose at 

3 its location directly. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, we have 

6 kind of done that. We have kind of behaved 

7 that way. 

8 If, in fact, you are concerned that 

9 angular dependence of that badge as it's worn, 

10 just in general -- you know, there are certain 

11 specific cases like Mallinckrodt where we've 

12 also come up with, in these specific cases, we 

13 have these adjustments we will make, and 

14 gloveboxes is another example we have made. 

15 But just a general question that 

16 has come up in some dose reconstructions about 

17 certain kinds of situations, how do you know 

18 that a particular badge, interpreting that as 

19 normal instant radiation is the correct 

20 interpretation? Because there are radiation 

21 sources around in the workplace, sort of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

188 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 undefined, but you know that there are 

2 radiation sources around. So, is that normal 

3 incidence to the -- is that the correct 

4 assumption? 

5 And the assumption that the 

6 dosimeter correctly measures the dose at its 

7 location, is that a correct assumption? That 

8 one we haven't really gone into yet, and we 

9 have not written anything about that. 

10 To me, I grew up in the profession, 

11 and in the profession a film badge or a TLD, 

12 that's about what you can do. They're pretty 

13 good at measuring what they measure where they 

14 are. You've got to know their limitations, 

15 but they're pretty good at measuring where 

16 they are. That's how I grew up. 

17 And most of us at DCAS are health 

18 physicists. So, that is kind of what we 

19 brought to it. And so, that's how we have 

20 always behaved. 

21 So, to say that just as a general 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

189 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 in many, many kind of situations -- when 

2 someone is working in any number of 

3 workplaces, that's not an appropriate 

4 assumption. That's something we have not 

5 talked about, and I don't really know where to 

6 go on that. That's almost philosophical. 

7 I mean there's some technical 

8 things to cite. I think at one time we cited 

9 some research done by, it must have been IARC, 

10 about that, and IARC concluded that the badge 

11 reading was the appropriate, was the best 

12 estimate to use. So, that's just out there 

13 somewhere. I mean that's out there. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: I strongly support 

15 that position, but the alternative concerns 

16 seem to come up on a regular basis. And as I 

17 just pointed out, we just said in 13 that it's 

18 a broader, overarching issue. 

19 So, the question is, does film 

20 badge geometry fall into the category of one 

21 of those issues that --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

190 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think it 

2 probably does, and that's one of the things, I 

3 think it comes out of dose reconstruction. I 

4 think it may come up in a couple of other Site 

5 Profile and Evaluation Report reviews as well. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: I suspect it has. But 

7 is it the recommendation, should we recommend 

8 that it be added to the -- since we have 

9 encountered it on several occasions here in 

10 this --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the geometry 

12 issue that they're dealing with in 13 has to 

13 do with the factor that is used to distinguish 

14 between the chest and organ of interest. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which is different 

17 than angular dependence. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Right. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: That's different 

20 than --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think you're 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

191 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 talking about angular dependence. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm talking about 

3 angular dependence. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and so am I, yes. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I don't know 

6 what we do with angular dependence. 

7 Where do we stand on these 

8 resuspension factors? I know we've 

9 transferred those from some individual cases 

10 to this group as an overarching issue. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: We're going to be 

12 discussing resuspension factors probably when 

13 we get into OTIB-70 this afternoon. I don't 

14 know if you want to --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and it's come 

16 up other places as well, although 70 is a good 

17 place to kind of look at it because that's a 

18 common -- you know, because OTIB-70 is dose 

19 reconstruction from residual periods when 

20 you've got contamination or some measure, some 

21 way to estimate in a residual period when --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

192 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: We have had a lot 

2 of individual cases where there have been 

3 resupension factor issues. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: And we are tending 

6 to move them into this one. Does that qualify 

7 as overarching or --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it could very 

9 well. We'll see how our discussion goes this 

10 afternoon. And, then, I will have to go back 

11 to those cases and see how they play out, if 

12 they are, in fact, residual. If they are the 

13 kinds of cases that would be covered by 

14 OTIB-70, then resolving them in 70 would be 

15 resolving those. If they are other 

16 applications where resupension was used, other 

17 than -- so, in dose reconstruction, we used 

18 resupension, but we wouldn't have used OTIB-70 

19 to do that dose reconstruction. Then, in that 

20 case, it may be some other reason to carry it 

21 farther than OTIB-70. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

193 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim. 

2 I think OTIB-70 would cover almost 

3 all cases of resupension factors. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Good. 

6 DR. NETON: I can't think of an 

7 instance where it wouldn't. And what happens 

8 with a lot of these things is they get listed 

9 as overarching issues, but at the end of the 

10 day, what typically happens is it becomes a 

11 site-specific issue at the end of the day 

12 because all sites are different. 

13 In fact, if you look at SC&A's 

14 comments on TIB-70, that's kind of where they 

15 end up, is there's no unique resuspension 

16 factor that can be applied across the complex. 

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, I would like to 

18 say our thinking, especially for the residual 

19 period, OTIB-70 -- this is John Mauro --

20 applies, has matured. And I think we should 

21 have an interesting discussion. And we're 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

194 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 going to resolve, I believe, some of the 

2 discussions related to resuspension factor 

3 that have come up, especially as it applies to 

4 the residual period. We will be talking about 

5 that. It's going to be interesting. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, hopefully, we 

7 will have a good discussion first thing this 

8 afternoon. 

9 In the meantime, Jim, as long as 

10 you're there, what are your thoughts on the 

11 angular angle --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: The angular angle? 

13 (Laughter.) 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, angular angle. 

15 The angular film badge issue? 

16 DR. NETON: I think it's something 

17 that we need to address. Stu correctly 

18 summarized where we are with that. I mean 

19 it's been brought up in a few instances. 

20 I vaguely recall addressing this in 

21 some Working Group meetings a while ago, but I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

195 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 would have to go back and pull out what, of 

2 course. 

3 But I do think it is something that 

4 needs to be addressed in one way or another. 

5 Whether it ends up becoming a policy issue or 

6 a science issue, I'm not sure at this point. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I'm not sure, 

8 either. I guess my real question to you is 

9 whether you feel it should be on your list of 

10 overarching issues at this moment. 

11 DR. NETON: Yes, I think it could 

12 be. It may actually fall as a subcategory of 

13 nonstandard external exposure. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it could easily. 

15 DR. NETON: That would include both 

16 the -- that's sort of what Bob did in his 

17 review of TIB-13 I was listening to. It 

18 included both the exposure geometry and the 

19 angular dependence of the badge. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: If we can make the 

21 assumption that angular dependence is going to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

196 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 become a subcategory of that nonstandard 

2 external, then I think we can put our concerns 

3 to rest with respect to whether it needs to be 

4 as a separate issue on the list. 

5 I'm certainly content with that. 

6 What's the feeling of other Board Members? 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, it makes 

8 sense. 

9 MEMBER LEMEN: That's fine. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Mike, are you all 

11 right with that? 

12 (No response.) 

13 Mark, are you all right with that? 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, I'm sorry. 

15 I just stepped back in. I missed --

16 MEMBER LEMEN: Just say you're okay 

17 with it. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm okay with it. 

20 (Laughter.) 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Whatever it is. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

197 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Was that 

2 announcing that we're going to lunch? I'm 

3 okay with it. 

4 (Laughter.) 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that was my very 

6 next statement. 

7 No, we had just gone through the 

8 list of currently listed overarching issues, 

9 one of which is nonstandard external exposure. 

10 We had been discussing whether or not angular 

11 dependence of the placement of film badge was 

12 a separate issue, and we had just here around 

13 this table pretty much come to the conclusion 

14 that it is a legitimate subcategory of the 

15 existing nonstandard external exposure 

16 listing. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Then I am okay 

18 with that. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very good. 

20 That being the case, does anyone 

21 else have any comment, any question, anything 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

198 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 to add to this discussion? 

2 (No response.) 

3 If not, we are adjourned for lunch. 

4 We'll be back here at 1:30. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thank you. 

6 MR. KATZ: Thanks, everyone on the 

7 line. 

8 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

9 went off the record for lunch at 12:23 p.m. 

10 and went back on the record at 1:31 p.m.) 

11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
199 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

200 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

2 1:31 p.m. 

3 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon, folks on 

4 the phone. 

5 This is the Advisory Board on 

6 Radiation and Worker Health, the Procedures 

7 Review Subcommittee. And we are just 

8 reconvening after a lunch break. 

9 Let me check and see that we have 

10 our Board Members with us again. 

11 Mark and Mike, are you with us? 

12 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, Ted, this is 

13 Mike. I'm here. 

14 MR. KATZ: Hi, Mike. You sound a 

15 little better. 

16 MEMBER GIBSON: Thanks. 

17 MR. KATZ: Briefly. 

18 Mark, are you with us, too? 

19 (No response.) 

20 Okay. Well, we can proceed. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very good. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

201 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 I guess the other person we're 

2 interested in is Dr. Lipsztein. Is she 

3 available? 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, what are we --

5 DR. MAURO: I just spoke with her. 

6 I told her she could join us at 1:30. Good. 

7 So, she may be calling in. But, at a 

8 minimum, she guaranteed she would be here at 

9 3:30. So, I just emailed her. I asked if she 

10 could join us at 1:30. That would be great. 

11 But, right now, I left it to her. She 

12 definitely is on at 3:30, though. 

13 MR. KATZ: Great. Thank you, John. 

14 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: We appreciate that. 

16 OTIB-70, I believe the ball is in 

17 SC&A's court, is it not? 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. We received 

19 NIOSH's initial responses on OTIB-70, and we 

20 have loaded up into the database our replies 

21 to those initial responses as well as there 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

202 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 was a file, again, in the email that I sent 

2 yesterday, there was a file which has the same 

3 issue history, OTIB-70 issue history, as is in 

4 the database. So, you can either follow along 

5 with the Word file or you can follow along 

6 with the database, whichever is more 

7 convenient. 

8 I guess the question is --

9 CHAIR MUNN: The first item that 

10 was shown on the material that was just sent 

11 to us is OTIB-70-01-17. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't see where 

13 you're reading the 17. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, from the material 

15 that was --

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, okay, 17 down, 

17 that's the page number. 

18 DR. ULSH: Wait. I don't think 

19 you're looking at the same thing. This is 

20 what Steve sent out yesterday. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yesterday's stuff 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

203 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 I don't have. Yes. 

2 MEMBER LEMEN: You want the stuff 

3 that you sent out yesterday, right, Steve? 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: That was the stuff 

5 that I was reading. That's what I was 

6 thinking about. And what you've got, yes, 

7 okay, this is OTIB -- the 17 is the page 

8 number. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay? 

11 CHAIR MUNN: From the OTIB. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

13 MEMBER LEMEN: I should have it 

14 myself. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: What you're looking 

16 at, Wanda, probably does not have the SC&A 

17 reply. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: No, but did I just 

19 hear you say that you loaded those? 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, they are in the 

21 database. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

204 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Then, there's no 

2 problem. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: If you can get into 

4 the database, you can see them. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: They're there. 

6 MEMBER LEMEN: It was in what you 

7 sent out yesterday? 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, the file's name 

9 is ORAU- --

10 MEMBER LEMEN: I found it. I've 

11 got it. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

13 MEMBER LEMEN: I just have to open 

14 it now. Got it. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. How do you 

16 want to proceed, Wanda? Do you want to read 

17 the issues and --

18 CHAIR MUNN: I think what we need 

19 to do is read the issue and, then, your 

20 current response where we are. I don't think 

21 the material in between is necessary, unless 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

205 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 someone wants to hear it or does not have it 

2 on their screen. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: But if we have the 

5 initial finding and, then, your most recent 

6 response? 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding 1 is, "The 

8 most obvious fault concerning the default 

9 value of the 1 percent per day source term 

10 depletion as derived above is the use of a 

11 resuspension factor of 8 to the minus 5th per 

12 meter. This value is near a two orders of 

13 magnitude higher than NIOSH's recommended 

14 resuspension factor of 1e-06 per meter." 

15 If we jump down to the most current 

16 SC&A response, we say, "Part of the problem is 

17 that adequate justification of the 1 percent 

18 per day factor is lacking. NIOSH states in 

19 Section 2.6 that the assumption of a 1 percent 

20 per day source depletion factor (consistent 

21 with research summarized in Section 2.5 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

206 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 above), if one looks at Section 2.5, the only 

2 justification for the 1 percent per day is an 

3 equation developed by Linsley, who quotes a 

4 factor of 1 percent per day for the decrease 

5 in the resuspension factor with time, not the 

6 decrease in the source term. 

7 "Elsewhere in OTIB-70, the factor 

8 of 1 percent per day refers to source term 

9 depletion based on a time-independent 

10 resuspension factor. It should be noted that 

11 the work of Linsley was based on outdoor 

12 measurements, and that the extension of 

13 outdoor conditions to indoor is 

14 scientifically-questionable. 

15 "In Section 2.6, NIOSH presents the 

16 following equation for source term decay due 

17 to ventilation in a work area. Lambda equals 

18 24KnH/day where lambda is the decay constant, 

19 decay is the resuspension factor per meter, H 

20 is the room height in meters, and n is the air 

21 turnover rate per hour. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

207 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 "For illustrative purposes, we 

2 assume that there H is 5 meters and N is 1 per 

3 hour. We believe that these are reasonable 

4 rates for an industrial setting with no forced 

5 ventilation. If the resuspension rate, rather 

6 than the resuspension factor, is available, 

7 then lambda equals 24f per day, where f is the 

8 resuspension rate. 

9 "We note that, while K could be 

10 time-dependent, as suggested in 2.5 of 

11 OTIB-70, throughout the balance of the 

12 document K is assumed to be time-independent. 

13 We also note that NRPB-W1, Calculation of 

14 Resuspension Doses for Emergency Response, 

15 Walsh, 2002, recommends, `a time-independent 

16 resuspension factor' for indoor situations. 

17 "Assuming that the 1 percent per 

18 day factor for source term depletion is 

19 scientifically-supported (which we do not 

20 believe was done in OTIB-70), the fundamental 

21 approach is flawed. The problem is that the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

208 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 value, 1 percent per day, cited in Section 2.6 

2 of OTIB-70 does not match the resuspension 

3 factor of 1e-06 per meter. If, for example, 

4 one was to apply Method 5 in Table 4-1 of 

5 OTIB-70, one should use a resuspension factor 

6 of 5E-5 per meter and a decay constant of 1 

7 percent per day or a resuspension factor of 

8 1e-06 per meter and a decay constant of .012 

9 percent per day. 

10 "It would seem that, in cases where 

11 the resuspension factor plays a role (i.e., 

12 Methods 2, 4, and 5), one option would be to 

13 evaluate the resuspension factor on a case14 specific basis and select an appropriate value 

15 based on the site circumstances. For example, 

16 if cleanup had occurred at the end of 

17 operation, then the use of a factor of 1e-06 

18 per meter would be appropriate. One would 

19 then calculate a decay constant consistent 

20 with the assumed resuspension factor. 

21 "If the objective of OTIB-70 is to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

209 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 provide a bounding claimant-favorable 

2 approach, it is not possible to select a 

3 single combination of resuspension factors and 

4 decay constants that would always be limiting. 

5 For an AWE worker who was employed at the 

6 beginning of the residual period, use of a 

7 resuspension factor of 8E-5 per meter and a 

8 decay constant of 1 percent per day would be 

9 the appropriate parameter set, since within 

10 the first year the source term would have been 

11 depleted and the worker's exposure would be 

12 maximized. However, if the worker's 

13 employment began after the first year 

14 following cessation of operations, then use of 

15 a resuspension factor of 1e-06 per meter and a 

16 decay constant of .012 percent would be 

17 limiting since the source term would not be 

18 depleted for about 23 years. 

19 "If it is not possible to estimate 

20 the resuspension factor on a case-specific 

21 basis, an alternative approach to the problem 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

210 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 could be to assume that a resuspension factor 

2 of either 1e-06 per meter or 1e-04 per meter, 

3 and calculate lambda using the equation cited 

4 above, applying situation-appropriate values 

5 for H and n based on the employee's work 

6 history relative to the residual period, one 

7 could determine which resuspension factor was 

8 limiting and use that factor in a dose 

9 reconstruction calculation." 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Steve, my apologies to 

11 you. I didn't realize when I said, "Would you 

12 please read it" that it was going to be that 

13 long. I could just have easily have read it 

14 and saved your breath, for goodness' sake. 

15 (Laughter.) 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm going to have a 

17 drink of water. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think it's a 

19 good idea for you to have a drink of water. 

20 This is information that has just 

21 been received. And whether or not NIOSH has 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

211 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 anything to say at this juncture, without 

2 having absorbed that, I don't know. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not sure I 

4 understood it. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: It was pretty thick 

6 there. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Is there a linkage 

8 here, an assumed linkage, between the 

9 resuspension factor and the removal rate? Is 

10 that right? 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: No, the removal rate 

12 works on the source term. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: On the source term? 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, and the 

15 resuspension factor remains --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Just fixed? 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: -- fixed. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

19 DR. MAURO: Is Bill Thurber on the 

20 line? 

21 MR. THURBER: Yes, he is. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

212 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. MAURO: Yes, Bill, I know, 

2 Steve, you read through it, but, you know, 

3 when you read through it, there's a story in 

4 here. Our thinking regarding resuspension 

5 factors and OTIB-70 and the different 

6 strategies that are laid out, this is sort of 

7 like another way to look at this thing. 

8 Quite frankly, we think that maybe, 

9 when you look at OTIB-70 -- stay with me for a 

10 minute; stay with me for a minute -- because 

11 it's important to step back first and take the 

12 whole thing in. It's an important OTIB and 

13 one that we are very favorably inclined, but 

14 we do have certain concerns. 

15 In the big picture, and after I 

16 give my introduction, I'm going to ask Bill to 

17 go into the specific issue. But in the grand 

18 scheme of things, in the residual period, when 

19 NIOSH uses OTIB-70, they usually apply the 

20 approach where they take a dust loading that 

21 was observed at the end of the operation or 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

213 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 decontamination period and use that as the 

2 beginning of the residual period. That sort 

3 of places an upper bound on what the 

4 concentration might be in the beginning of the 

5 residual period if you had no air-sampling 

6 data. It certainly would be an upper bound 

7 from the beginning. 

8 And very often, NIOSH has access to 

9 data which was collected during the FUSRAP 

10 program, which could be 20, 30, 40 years 

11 later. And that's the only real data you have 

12 during the residual period. 

13 So, in order to place a plausible 

14 upper bound, the approach that OTIB-70 adopts, 

15 I would say this is the really time/area 

16 approach. It is to basically draw an 

17 exponential line from the high-end number at 

18 the beginning of the residual period that's 

19 really based on measured values during 

20 operations and go down exponentially to the 

21 concentrations that were observed much later 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

214 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 when the FUSRAP program, where they took some 

2 dust measurements. 

3 And this is the basic approach that 

4 has been adopted, for example, on Linde and 

5 other locations where we support that 

6 approach. But that's just one of, I think, 

7 six or seven approaches to coming at the 

8 residual period that's laid out in OTIB-70. 

9 And it basically leaves the door 

10 open to the dose reconstructor on which of the 

11 six or seven different strategies will be 

12 used, depending on the data that is or is not 

13 available to the dose reconstructor. 

14 So, this first method I just 

15 described is the method that, quite frankly, 

16 is used most of the time. And we're very 

17 supportive of it. 

18 But now, if you're not going to use 

19 that approach and you start to go to these 

20 other approaches where, for example, the 1 

21 percent per day comes in, or we are talking 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

215 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 about using a resuspension factor. You notice 

2 in the first approach, the one I just 

3 described earlier, there's no resuspension 

4 factor. You don't need one. You have 

5 measured values and you just interpolate. 

6 But when you are going to resort to 

7 a resuspension factor approach and a declining 

8 airborne activity without the 1 percent per 

9 day number, we have a problem with the 

10 methods, these other methods. And in effect, 

11 the writeup that you have before you tells the 

12 story of how we think you could come at this 

13 problem when you don't use the interpolation. 

14 We'll call the first one the interpolation 

15 approach, which is what I would call the 

16 preferred approach. But if you don't have the 

17 information you need to do that, what we just 

18 read was the approach that we think can be 

19 used, which really would replace the other 

20 methods that you described in OTIB-70. We 

21 feel there's some problems with it. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

216 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 With that, I don't know, but, Bill, 

2 maybe you want to explain conceptually the 

3 difference between the methods that are 

4 adopted in OTIB-70 and why we have problems 

5 with it and this other strategy that is sort 

6 of laid out here that Steve effectively just 

7 read to us. But, you know, there is really a 

8 picture here that has to take form, and I 

9 think it's important. 

10 DR. NETON: John, this is Jim. Can 

11 I say something before Bill starts in? 

12 DR. MAURO: Sure, sure. 

13 DR. NETON: Yes, I think you hit 

14 the nail on the head. I mean we have to sort 

15 of look at what TIB-70 was designed to do, and 

16 that was to give the dose reconstructors sort 

17 of a toolbox as to how to approach the 

18 residual period. It's actually not the dose 

19 reconstructors, but the people writing the 

20 reports, the Site Profiles and such. 

21 And you're right, the gold standard 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

217 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 at least is to have an operational dose, 

2 operational air samples, followed by some sort 

3 of a measurement down in the residual period 

4 that you can extrapolate between. 

5 But the other methods are there to 

6 fill in the gaps when information is lacking. 

7 I think maybe part of the issue is the 

8 resuspension factors that are listed in there 

9 need to be defined a little better. Like this 

10 one times ten to the minus six, a big deal has 

11 been made of it, although I think you stated 

12 that you would agree that one times ten to the 

13 minus six would either be appropriate for 

14 facilities that had been cleaned up or what we 

15 would call a quiescent condition. 

16 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

17 DR. NETON: Nothing going on in 

18 them. 

19 DR. MAURO: Right, and by the way, 

20 Wanda and the rest of the Subcommittee, this 

21 is an important maturation of thought on our 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

218 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 part. You know, we have been troubled for a 

2 long time by the ten to the minus six. And 

3 the reason for that is in most contexts where 

4 we engaged on this matter it was during 

5 operations, and the question was, if you have 

6 some residual -- we have a lot of dust, a lot 

7 of uranium, bottom line. 

8 If you're in a facility with a lot 

9 of uranium on surfaces that you could see it, 

10 and there are people walking around and 

11 working in it, well, in those circumstances 

12 the ten to the minus six is not a good number. 

13 It's something like ten to the minus five to 

14 maybe even ten to the minus four. And there's 

15 lots of literature on that. 

16 However, it's very important to 

17 point out, though, if the site has been 

18 cleaned up, if you're in the residual period, 

19 you went through a cleanup, and you really got 

20 rid of as much of the contamination that you 

21 could, and you're really left with a place 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

219 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 that's fairly clean, well, then, that's when 

2 the ten to the minus six starts to make sense. 

3 In fact, the Nuclear Regulatory 

4 Commission recommends ten to the minus six for 

5 use at sites after they have been cleaned up 

6 because you have removed most of the 

7 removable, the stuff that's going to be 

8 readily resuspended. So, we agree that ten to 

9 the minus six would be a good value when the 

10 surfaces have been well cleaned up, but not 

11 when it is contaminated. 

12 But, then, we move on to this other 

13 matter of the rate at which that airborne 

14 activity declines. And, Bill, the logic 

15 behind linking the resuspension factor with 

16 the rate of decline is what really is the new 

17 twist that we have introduced here, which is a 

18 lot different than the approach that NIOSH is 

19 recommending as the alternative approach to 

20 the extrapolation method. 

21 DR. H. BEHLING: John, can I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

220 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 interrupt you? 

2 DR. MAURO: Sure. 

3 DR. H. BEHLING: I think we need to 

4 recognize that OTIB-70 really represents seven 

5 different discrete methods for doing a dose 

6 assessment or exposure assessment. And those 

7 are Methods 1 through 7, and they are all 

8 based on the availability of data. 

9 DR. MAURO: Right. 

10 DR. H. BEHLING: As you mentioned, 

11 Method 1 is based on the availability of air 

12 sampling during operational time periods and 

13 the availability of air sampling during post14 operational. Now, as OTIB-70, obviously, 

15 states clearly, that is not always, this 

16 preferred method is not always available 

17 because the data isn't available. 

18 So, there's no question that, if 

19 the operational and post-operational period 

20 had significant amounts of air-sampling data, 

21 that would be used. The truth is, obviously, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

221 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Method No. 2, which says we only have 

2 operational air-sampling data, but there's 

3 nothing during the post-operational period on 

4 which we can hang our hat on, this is where 

5 the 1 percent comes into play --

6 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

7 DR. H. BEHLING: -- where you 

8 artificially decide what that number could be. 

9 In terms of No. 3, you have no 

10 operational air-sampling data, but you only 

11 have post-operational. So, the choice of 

12 methods among the seven is driven by the 

13 availability of data. It's not a choice, 

14 John. 

15 DR. MAURO: Right, but, then, I 

16 think the concern we have, though, is when you 

17 move into one of these other approaches where 

18 you have limited data, and you start to use a 

19 resuspension factor, and also maybe some rate 

20 at which that airborne activity might decline, 

21 that's what this piece that you just read is. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

222 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Well, how do you do that? 

2 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, John. John, 

3 I realize this, and this is exactly why the 

4 findings exist. 

5 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

6 DR. H. BEHLING: I'm the author, by 

7 the way, of the final report. 

8 DR. MAURO: Right. 

9 DR. H. BEHLING: So, I'm very 

10 familiar with it, and I do have to raise the 

11 question about the 1 percent per day depletion 

12 rate because it's an unrealistic number. 

13 If anyone has ever worked in a 

14 facility where you deal with contamination, 

15 flow contamination or any other contamination, 

16 for instance, a nuclear power plant, you 

17 realize the contamination on the floor just 

18 because you shut down the reactor or even 

19 removed all of the radioactivity within the 

20 reactor core, and you're left with a 

21 contamination level on the floors within the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

223 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 reactor building or elsewhere, it does not 

2 remove at 1 percent per day. Otherwise, 

3 decommissioning of a reactor facility would 

4 simply mean having people walk around after 

5 the reactor shuts down for a period of a few 

6 months, and you would be decommissioned. That 

7 is not the case. 

8 So, our whole issue here of the 1 

9 percent is based on a resuspension rate that, 

10 furthermore, assumes that once it's airborne 

11 and you have a ventilation system working, it 

12 is 100 percent removed, and it is not. 

13 DR. MAURO: Right. 

14 DR. H. BEHLING: We clearly have to 

15 come to that conclusion that the 1 percent per 

16 day is not a supportable value that is based 

17 on realistic or empirical data. 

18 And in fact, in my review, on page 

19 17 of my review, I cite the issue of the Dow 

20 Chemical Company. Actually, no, it's not. 

21 Page 15. Where we do have, in fact, some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

224 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 monitoring data during the operational and 

2 post-operational period. And I ended up 

3 devising an empirically-derived depletion 

4 factor that is a factor of 37 times lower. 

5 And so, again, if you look at this 

6 as an example, you realize that the depletion 

7 factor of 1 percent per day simply doesn't 

8 hold up in the real world. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Where did the 1 

10 percent come from as a starting point? Was 

11 that out of a literature source? 

12 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. In fact, I 

13 quote one of them, which is really Finding No. 

14 2, and it's based on a study of 1971 by Healy. 

15 And he talks about a residential facility, a 

16 house or an apartment from outdoor 

17 contamination. I even quoted it in my report, 

18 and he provides the following statement: 

19 "For estimating the quantity of 

20 materials affected, it was assumed that 30 

21 percent of the material brought in per day was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

225 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 transferred to the residential indoor living 

2 area, and that it remained in a resuspensable 

3 form with a half-life of one week, with lamba 

4 being 0.1 per day." 

5 And he says, "Again, there are no 

6 data to indicate the order of magnitude for 

7 this effect and the seven-day trigger for the 

8 half-life was arbitrarily chosen." 

9 So, as far as I'm concerned, if 

10 this was the basis for coming up with the 1 

11 percent, it is a very whimsical, if not 

12 ludicrous, method by which one could justify 

13 this value. 

14 DR. MAURO: A good way to think 

15 about it, what convinced me about this issue 

16 is, in order for you to have 1 percent per 

17 day, and this is the writeup that you're 

18 looking at, if you were to have eight times 

19 ten to the minus five, a resuspension factor, 

20 ten to the minus four -- that's a fairly high 

21 resuspension factor, something that would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

226 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 occur when you have lots of loose 

2 contamination on surfaces. And if that is 

3 what your resuspension factor is, and you have 

4 an air turnover rate of 1 per hour, then you 

5 could get 1 percent per day. 

6 So, if you have a very high 

7 resuspension factor because there's a lot of 

8 loose contamination, certainly not ten to the 

9 minus six, but something closer to ten to the 

10 minus four, and then you had a ventilation 

11 system operating on that material as it became 

12 airborne, so you're holding that eight times 

13 ten to the minus four resuspension factor and 

14 it was continually coming up, so that you 

15 always have one times ten to the minus four 

16 resuspension factor, then that means the air, 

17 and if you had a 1 per hour air turnover rate, 

18 which is a typical air turnover rate, you 

19 could get 1 percent per day. And that's what 

20 this writeup says. 

21 But you certainly can't get 1 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

227 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 percent per day if you've got a resuspension 

2 factor of ten to the minus six. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: And that factor, 

4 that percent factor that you calculate using 

5 that methodology that John just described, it 

6 really is a source term reduction factor as 

7 opposed to reducing the resuspension factor. 

8 The other area where the 1 percent 

9 per day comes from is this equation by 

10 Linsley, 1978. You can see in the exponential 

11 term here he's got .01 times T, which is 

12 really .01 is 1 percent per day. 

13 DR. MAURO: That is environmental, 

14 though. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: That's an external, 

16 that's outside, yes. 

17 DR. MAURO: Outside, yes. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: That's outside. 

19 DR. MAURO: See, that's important, 

20 yes, because the way in which --

21 MR. THURBER: But, John, that's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

228 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 not --

2 DR. MAURO: Yes. Well, okay, help 

3 me out, sure. If I'm --

4 MR. THURBER: Their 1 percent per 

5 day was the change in the resuspension factor 

6 with time. That was not 1 percent per day 

7 reduction in the source term for time. 

8 So, as we pointed out in what Steve 

9 read for us all, and supporting what Hans 

10 said, there's no good basis for the 1 percent 

11 per day. In this particular case, we're 

12 talking about now, that was the change in the 

13 resuspension factor with time. And in the 

14 other example which Hans mentioned, it was a 

15 number that the author used as a demonstration 

16 calculation, in my view, without any 

17 particular scientific basis for it. 

18 So, the 1 percent number is not 

19 well-justified. But I think the key point in 

20 this discussion here is that, if you are going 

21 to use the approach that NIOSH did, that you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

229 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 have to properly link the resuspension factor 

2 you use and support it, technically justify 

3 it, and use a decay rate that is consistent 

4 with that, a source term decay rate that is 

5 consistent with that. 

6 DR. NETON: This is Jim. 

7 I think we would agree with that. 

8 I mean the only two of the scenarios, I think, 

9 that this 1 percent per day applies, out of 

10 all these values, out of all these scenarios, 

11 is where you either have no post-operational 

12 data, whether it is an air sample or a surface 

13 contamination value. So, two out of the seven 

14 scenarios is where that applies. 

15 And I would agree that universally 

16 applying the 1 percent per day without looking 

17 at the facility-specific conditions is 

18 probably not appropriate. So, I think we can 

19 cut to the chase here, and we can justify or 

20 modify that approach to accommodate that 

21 logic. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

230 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. SHARFI: Jim, this is Mutty 

2 Sharfi. 

3 DR. NETON: Yes. 

4 MR. SHARFI: I can speak to the 

5 matching of the 1 percent and the 8 minus 5. 

6 DR. NETON: Yes. 

7 MR. SHARFI: The reason why those 

8 don't match is the 8 to the minus 5 is 

9 assuming that really the ventilation is the 

10 only source term to remove, is the only source 

11 of depletion for the source term. 

12 DR. NETON: Right. 

13 MR. SHARFI: And, realistically, 

14 your resuspension ventilation isn't your only 

15 source in how you remove material from a 

16 facility. You know, there's a number of real 

17 reasons how or mechanisms that remove or 

18 dilute material out of an area. And 

19 therefore, the 1 percent per day accounts for 

20 all those factors, not just resuspension. 

21 The equation was designed really 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

231 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 just to give you an account for, if you only 

2 considered a resuspension, then you would have 

3 to have a much higher resuspension. But when 

4 you consider other mechanisms, such as 

5 tracking offsite, dilution, you know, moving 

6 material into crevices, I mean when you 

7 consider other mechanisms for making material 

8 less resuspendable, then your depletion rate 

9 in the sense of what's available to be inhaled 

10 increases because really resuspension is not 

11 the only mechanism. 

12 So, you're kind of mixing two 

13 factors --

14 MR. THURBER: No, but that is a 

15 qualitative argument. That's not quantified. 

16 MR. SHARFI: That is what the OTIB, 

17 I'm just saying that is the argument made in 

18 the OTIB. 

19 DR. NETON: But, no, I understand 

20 that all. And eight times ten to the minus 

21 five is 80 times higher than one times ten to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

232 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 the minus five. I understand that. 

2 But the problem is I think that we 

3 have other instances in the approaches where 

4 we use a hard-and-fast one times ten to the 

5 minus six --

6 MR. SHARFI: Yes. Correct. 

7 DR. NETON: -- without any 

8 qualification at all. And I think what I'm 

9 saying is that we probably need to go back and 

10 qualify those statements to some degree. 

11 MR. SHARFI: Yes, and those are 

12 limited. I mean we don't use that number for 

13 D&D activities or during cleanup. I mean 

14 those are limited to post-shutdown no more 

15 things happening. 

16 DR. NETON: Exactly. And I think 

17 that is the source of the issue here, is that 

18 the way the TIB is written, it seems to be 

19 hard-and-fast application. In fact, we know 

20 that that is not the way it works in practice. 

21 So, I think we can go back and fix 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

233 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 these to some degree and put some better 

2 limits --

3 MR. SHARFI: Okay. I just wanted 

4 to clarify the comment, which is Comment 1, 

5 versus --

6 DR. NETON: I know. 

7 MR. SHARFI: -- the discussion of 

8 whether 1 percent is valid. Comment 1 really 

9 just deals with how the 1 percent and 80 to 

10 the minus 5 correspond, and I wanted to 

11 clarify that versus whether or not you believe 

12 1 percent is valid. 

13 DR. NETON: Well, I know, but the 

14 argument, then, is, is eight times ten to the 

15 minus fifth the right resuspension factor? 

16 And John Mauro just agreed that, if 

17 you had this huge resuspension factor and that 

18 ventilation rate, it would be 1 percent per 

19 day, at least for the loose material. 

20 MR. SHARFI: If you only assume 

21 resuspension. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

234 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. MAURO: And that's true. If we 

2 had other information, I mean we try to find 

3 data on what that rate is declining. And the 

4 only strong data we have on the rate at which 

5 the resuspension factor declines is outdoors, 

6 the work that Linsley did and Anspaugh did at 

7 the Nevada Test Site. 

8 And I think that what we're seeing 

9 is, after this initial high resuspension rate, 

10 you see this decline in the resuspension 

11 factor at about 1 percent per day because 

12 we're outdoors, and there's weathering; 

13 there's seeping down into the soil. And as 

14 time goes on, the material that is on the 

15 surface is not on the surface anymore 

16 outdoors. 

17 DR. NETON: Well, see, I think 

18 indoors, John, you've got the situation where, 

19 typically, the measurements we have are loose 

20 plus fixed contamination. 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

235 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. NETON: And we're assuming it's 

2 all fixed -- or all loose. 

3 MR. THURBER: I want to say you're 

4 not really seeing a reduction in the 

5 resuspension factor. It's a reduction in the 

6 source term. 

7 DR. NETON: Yes. 

8 MR. THURBER: There's a difference 

9 there, you know. 

10 DR. NETON: Right. 

11 MR. THURBER: You know, the 

12 resuspension, things are being moved 

13 regardless, you know, energy being put into 

14 material in the ground and being resuspended 

15 up into the air. As the source term depletes, 

16 I mean, obviously, air concentration 

17 decreases. But it doesn't mean the ratio 

18 between, if the activities are the same, 

19 decreases. 

20 DR. MAURO: Well, I think we're 

21 debating a model, in effect, on how to deal 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

236 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 with this. The way I look at it is pretty 

2 simply. You know, if you can do the 

3 interpolation or extrapolation approach, 

4 great, that's the best way to go. If you 

5 can't and you just have some surface activity, 

6 let's say you have some knowledge of what's on 

7 the surface and you're going to resuspend it, 

8 and you know that it's been largely cleaned 

9 up, and you have a relatively clean 

10 environment, you're in the residual period -- 

11 you know, it's sort of like the way my model 

12 is, the Linde plan. And, you know, it's been 

13 cleaned up, but you still think there might be 

14 some potential for resuspension. 

15 In my mind, if you're not going to 

16 use the interpolation approach, and you can't 

17 because you don't have the data, but you do 

18 have some ppm per 100 centimeters squared 

19 numbers, and it's low, it's low because most 

20 of it has been taken away, then the ten to the 

21 minus six works. But that would basically 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

237 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 stay constant. 

2 I mean, if you're at ten to the 

3 minus six, I wouldn't try to use a one percent 

4 per day decline because I don't think that's 

5 going on. Now it may be more than .001. In 

6 other words, the rate of decline, as you 

7 correctly point out, may be more than just 

8 from the ventilation. It may be a combination 

9 of ventilation and what you would call perhaps 

10 some kind of weathering, where people walk and 

11 carry stuff out. 

12 But, you know, I think that it 

13 would be, if you are going to resort to a 

14 backup position to the interpolation, maybe 

15 just go with the ten to the minus six 

16 resuspension factor in a relatively clean 

17 residual period. 

18 MR. THURBER: But, John, I think 

19 you're confusing two issues, though. I mean 

20 we don't change the resuspension over time; 

21 the 1 minus 6 stays constant. What you're 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

238 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 saying is that over time the surface 

2 contamination is decaying at 1 percent per day 

3 over time, but the resuspension is constant. 

4 DR. MAURO: Well, no, I'm saying 

5 that, to assume that the activity in the room 

6 in a relatively clean room is going to be 

7 declining at 1 percent per day, I think that's 

8 too high. 

9 DR. H. BEHLING: And, John, you 

10 have to realize that this issue of 1 percent 

11 applies to two different methods. Method No. 

12 2, which says we have operational air sampling 

13 and nothing else, so now you have to define 

14 what your air sampling or air concentration 

15 might be during the post-operation. 

16 So, this 1 percent applies to 

17 Method No. 2, according to OTIB-70, as well as 

18 to Method No. 5, where you no longer have any 

19 air concentration, but you have operational 

20 surface contamination. And now you have to 

21 apply 1 percent to that value for the postNEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

239 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 operational surface contamination. 

2 Those are the two criteria. 

3 MR. THURBER: What about 4, Hans? 

4 What about Method 4? I don't have the OTIB 

5 open. 

6 DR. H. BEHLING: Method 4 is where 

7 you have operational surface contamination and 

8 post-operational surface contamination. Those 

9 are the different methods defined by 

10 availability of data. 

11 So, the 1 percent applies to, 

12 obviously, Method No. 2 and Method No. 5. 

13 MR. THURBER: Right. That's what I 

14 suggested earlier. And it's only when you 

15 don't have an anchor point to fit an 

16 exponential function. 

17 DR. H. BEHLING: And I still say, 

18 for instance, let's forget about whether it's 

19 cleaned up. The facilities that we have had 

20 to deal with in the past, it's that when they 

21 simply stop doing something that is no longer 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

240 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 under the auspices of the EEOICPA, where you 

2 don't have it cleaned up. They just stopped 

3 producing certain things that no longer fall 

4 into place. 

5 That means the source term is 

6 basically your contamination on the floor. 

7 That's what we're dealing with. This is what 

8 we --

9 DR. MAURO: Yes, but if it's not 

10 cleaned up, I would use --

11 DR. H. BEHLING: I know. That's 

12 what I'm saying. 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, I would use ten to 

14 the minus six. 

15 DR. H. BEHLING: Five to the minus 

16 six is not a realistic --

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, but, you know, the 

18 only reason why I mentioned this is that we 

19 did take a close look at this for Linde, and 

20 there was good reason to believe it was really 

21 cleaned up very well during the decon period. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

241 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 And the question was, what are we going to do 

2 during the residual period where we had 

3 nothing? We had no airborne samples until way 

4 down like 30 years later, 40 years later. 

5 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, I sort of 

6 think that there's nothing wrong with using 

7 perhaps surrogate data under those instances. 

8 For instance, in Dow Chemical, we have two 

9 sets of data for air sampling. What does that 

10 tell us? It certainly tells us that perhaps 

11 this E minus 6 or the 1 percent may not apply 

12 here. Otherwise, we wouldn't have these 

13 empirical data for those facilities where this 

14 contamination ever persists at a much higher 

15 concentration for much longer periods of time. 

16 And I would also like to answer the 

17 issue, if ventilation is not the primary 

18 source for removal of contamination, I have to 

19 seriously question what are secondary. For 

20 instance, the more realistic value that we 

21 have, obviously, identified, that is, if 8 E 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

242 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 minus 5 were to be used, that would only imply 

2 that the ventilation removal would have a very 

3 minor component. 

4 For instance, I'm reading the 

5 response here from NIOSH that says we would be 

6 tracking it from one higher area to a lower. 

7 Well, it can go in the reverse, and so forth. 

8 So, if you have a contaminated, 

9 let's say a football field that's indoors, and 

10 you track people back and forth, ultimately, a 

11 person tracking material from point A to B 

12 will also track point C back to A again. So, 

13 ultimately, it all evens out. 

14 I don't see how other mechanisms 

15 really come into play that are significant. I 

16 still believe that the ventilation, that's 

17 assuming, also, that the ventilation has heat 

18 resistance in it that do, in fact, remove 

19 everything from the air, so that it is not 

20 simply recirculated. 

21 Many of the heating/airNEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

243 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 conditioning systems in a facility recirculate 

2 the air, which means that not everything is 

3 removed through ventilation. So, therefore, 

4 this simplistic approach of saying, okay, if 

5 we have so many exchanges per hour and it's 

6 subject to some filtration system, that that 

7 activity now is completely and forever 

8 removed. 

9 First of all, in one of the other 

10 areas of my report, I stated that the 

11 contamination level at the breathing zone 

12 level at about the 5-6-foot level is not the 

13 same as the ventilation system which usually 

14 has an outtake at the ceiling, because you do 

15 have a very, very stratified concentration. 

16 Resuspension subject to particles falling back 

17 down or redepositing is not uniform. So that, 

18 when you have an air concentration that the 

19 person is exposed to at the breathing zone 

20 level, you may or may not have a good handle 

21 on what is really being removed by the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

244 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 filtration system. Anyway, that's another 

2 issue. 

3 DR. MAURO: See, Jim, I don't think 

4 we're that far apart on this. I think we're 

5 just troubled by the 1 percent per day is what 

6 it --

7 DR. NETON: I agree, John. I think 

8 the thing that bothers me, really, we're 

9 actually talking about the same dose. It's 

10 whether the dose is delivered over a short 

11 period of time or a very extended period of 

12 time because it comes down to picocurie per 

13 meter hours. 

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

15 DR. NETON: So, if you have a 

16 higher resuspension value, you end up 

17 assigning more dose in the earlier years than 

18 the later years. 

19 MR. THURBER: That's right, Jim, 

20 but, as we pointed out, you have to also 

21 factor in what the person's work history was. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

245 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. NETON: Oh, exactly. Yes. 

2 MR. THURBER: Because if he didn't 

3 work in the first year, in the first year of 

4 the residual period, and came onboard in the 

5 second year, and you used a high rate of 

6 depletion of the source term, then he would 

7 get nothing. 

8 DR. NETON: Oh, I understand that. 

9 MR. THURBER: Whereas, if you use 

10 an approach where it's stretched out over a 

11 longer period of time, the dose would be 

12 greater. 

13 So, as we pointed out, you really 

14 have to consider not only a consistent dataset 

15 for the resuspension factor and the source 

16 term depletion rate, but you also have to 

17 overlay the person's work history on top of 

18 that to be sure that you're doing a bounding 

19 job. 

20 DR. NETON: And the other thing 

21 that comes to mind, I don't know if it came 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

246 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 out in TIB-70 or not; actually, it would go to 

2 zero on these 1 percent per day calculations. 

3 Mutty might be able to help me out here, 

4 but --

5 MR. SHARFI: That's correct. 

6 DR. NETON: My recollection, it 

7 never gets mathematically towards zero, but at 

8 some point it gets to be vanishingly small. I 

9 think we ultimately end up fixing the lower 

10 bound at some value. 

11 MR. SHARFI: We take year three and 

12 go out ad infinitum. 

13 DR. NETON: Right. So, we never 

14 decrement it past, I guess, year three. 

15 MR. THURBER: Well, that's because 

16 you're using 1 percent per day, so it doesn't 

17 make any difference. It's all gone at that 

18 rate. 

19 DR. NETON: Well, I don't know what 

20 we end up at year three with. 

21 MR. SHARFI: It is pretty small by 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

247 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 three years. 

2 DR. MAURO: You probably stop at 

3 ten to the minus nine. That's what they did 

4 in the environmental. I mean the Anspaugh and 

5 the Linsley work, I think they go down -- they 

6 start at some number, you know, whatever it 

7 is, and they go down. But then at some point 

8 in time, they freeze it and then they hold it 

9 constant. And it might be ten to the minus 

10 nine. 

11 DR. NETON: It seems to me that, of 

12 all these 15 or 17 findings, the main issue is 

13 this 1 percent per day justification. I think 

14 that it is incumbent upon us to go and either 

15 justify that or modify that. And I'm not 

16 suggesting we're going to modify it, but we 

17 need to beef it up some. 

18 DR. MAURO: You know, I've got to 

19 say I don't remember you using it. When I 

20 check a lot of this work --

21 DR. NETON: I was thinking about 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

248 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 this, and I think we may have, but I'm not --

2 DR. MAURO: You may have? Yes. 

3 In other words, I look at the AWE 

4 cases a lot. That would be a place where you 

5 might use it. 

6 DR. NETON: It would have to be an 

7 AWE, and it would have to be an AWE without 

8 any post-operational data whatsoever. 

9 DR. MAURO: Correct. 

10 DR. NETON: And there have to be a 

11 few cases of that. 

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, maybe there are, 

13 yes. 

14 MR. THURBER: It would likely be a 

15 non-FUSRAP site. 

16 DR. NETON: Yes, a non-FUSRAP site 

17 and, typically, it would be some site that 

18 probably didn't have much contamination to 

19 begin with. 

20 MR. THURBER: Well, as we point out 

21 here later on, actually, at Hooker you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

249 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 calculated the dust level at the time 

2 operation ceased and held it constant forever, 

3 which avoids all this --

4 DR. NETON: Well, that was going to 

5 be my other thought. On some of these cases, 

6 we have done things like that, and it was --

7 MR. THURBER: And that probably, 

8 again, as we discuss later on, is probably 

9 more defensible than a couple of the other 

10 approaches. 

11 DR. NETON: Well, I think two 

12 things. One is we need to go back and look 

13 and see where we have used the 1 percent per 

14 day, really how we have done that. Secondly, 

15 if we are going to stick with it, we need to 

16 justify it better. 

17 The other issues I think that I 

18 have read are more around things like what's a 

19 good value for an air concentration data at a 

20 uranium facility to start with to generate the 

21 surface contamination stuff. And that's all 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

250 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 sort of being hashed out in the TBD-6000 era, 

2 as far as I can think. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: So, am I hearing that 

4 NIOSH is going to revisit the 1 percent per 

5 day issue? 

6 DR. NETON: Yes. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: And we will expect 

8 some response to the concerns expressed in 

9 both Item 1 and Item 2 from NIOSH next time? 

10 DR. NETON: Yes. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

12 DR. MAURO: Wanda, how many 

13 findings did you say that were in OTIB-70? 

14 DR. NETON: Fifteen, but a lot of 

15 them end up being TBD-6000 related issues and 

16 kind of redundant. 

17 DR. MAURO: I think once we resolve 

18 the matter we just discussed, they are all 

19 going to be resolved. I mean one way or the 

20 other. In other words, I think that they are 

21 all interconnected. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

251 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. NETON: Well, I think that this 

2 use of one times ten to the minus six is also 

3 an issue. 

4 MR. SHARFI: Exactly. I think 

5 those are the two primary issues, the 1 

6 percent and the 1e-06 resuspension. 

7 DR. NETON: We default to one times 

8 ten to the minus six, but I think, as Mutty 

9 pointed out, that's typically only used in 

10 either quiescent conditions or those that have 

11 been cleaned up. And we don't clearly specify 

12 that. 

13 So, again, I think we need to go 

14 back and look at what we have done in practice 

15 and then make sure that we're doing what we 

16 feel comfortable with. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: So, we have only 

18 looked at Item 1 and Item 2, but I think I'm 

19 hearing from the conversation that the general 

20 feeling is that virtually all of the issues 

21 that we have here bear on the findings of 1 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

252 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 and 2. Is that correct? Or am I overstating 

2 the case? 

3 DR. BEHLING: No, Wanda, I think 

4 you're correct because I'm looking at Finding 

5 No. 3, which questions the whole issue of 

6 removal of contamination through the 

7 ventilation system. And in my writeup, I 

8 talked about the fact that the ratio between 

9 exhaust air and the general room air and the 

10 breathing air, you can be off by a factor of 

11 15. But then again, once we correct the 1 

12 percent per day and the 1e-06, they are all 

13 connected. Most of the other findings that I 

14 cite in my report will somehow or other be 

15 tangentially corrected in the process. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: I guess my question 

17 really bears on whether or not it is 

18 productive for us at this juncture to continue 

19 going through each of the items for OTIB-70 

20 one by one or whether we need to postpone that 

21 kind of activity until after we have seen 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

253 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 NIOSH's revisit of these two key factors. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: One thing I would 

3 like to add, there were a few of the NIOSH 

4 responses to a few of the findings -- I am not 

5 sure how many -- where basically SC&A agreed 

6 with the NIOSH response and we would recommend 

7 that the issue be closed. That is one point. 

8 The second point is three of the 

9 issues, I think as Jim or somebody mentioned, 

10 we statused as being addressed in, I think it 

11 was, TBD-6000 or 6001. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think it's one 

13 of those two. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: It is my 

15 understanding that that TBD no longer exists. 

16 DR. MAURO: 6001. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: 6001 has been 

18 eliminated. 

19 DR. MAURO: Right, right. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: So, the question on 

21 those ones that have been addressed in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

254 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 TBD-6001, are they going to fall through the 

2 cracks or do we need to restatus them? Do we 

3 need to take them back, I guess, to this 

4 Subcommittee? 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Well, wait. I missed 

6 something there. We have cancelled TBD-6001? 

7 I thought we established a Work Group to take 

8 that? 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: We did and they 

10 just --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: The situation was 

12 6001, there was a lot of information in there 

13 that just never ended up getting used. We 

14 just haven't needed it. We are not going to 

15 use it. 

16 But there is sufficient information 

17 available from a TBD-6001 type approach of 

18 gathering information from several different 

19 sites of a particular nature, having them 

20 inform you about the site you're trying to 

21 investigate, that we can use those 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

255 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 individually for the specific sites, which 

2 until now have been written as appendices. 

3 So, that's the issue with 6001. 

4 Rather than try to resolve a lot of findings 

5 that were actually pertaining to parts of 

6 6001, which have not been used and we don't 

7 think will ever be used, let's just do away 

8 with that and don't worry about those 

9 findings, and then deal with the findings that 

10 pertain to the actual uses that will occur in 

11 the specific appendices. So, that's what's 

12 going on with 6001. 

13 TBD-6000 is still out there. So, 

14 any of these that we said we are going to take 

15 care of in 6000, those are fine. 

16 DR. MAURO: Yes. Well, let me help 

17 out a little, too. With TBD-6001, that is 

18 like the parent document. Then, of course, 

19 you have five attachments for five different 

20 facilities. I believe it is five, five or 

21 six. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

256 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 And the position is that there are 

2 a lot of problems with this generic TBD-6001, 

3 but it turns out that NIOSH's feelings are 

4 they could actually have standalone TBDs for 

5 each of those five. And they don't need to 

6 draw from this generic document, in other 

7 words. So, basically, let's get rid of 

8 TBD-6001 and have each one of those five 

9 attachments stand on their own merit as full10 blown Site Profiles without having to lean on 

11 TBD-6001. 

12 Now, on the other sites, TBD-6000, 

13 that's a strong document. TBD-6000, I think 

14 we have resolved most issues. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: There's no open 

16 issues any longer. 

17 DR. MAURO: There are no more; 

18 there you go. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: The only one is the 

20 resuspension, which moves into this group 

21 here. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

257 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. MAURO: Yes. And I think we 

2 are close, I think we are very close to 

3 resolving it. 

4 Now, remember, we're only talking 

5 the residual period now. TBD-6000 applies to 

6 both the residual and operations period. 

7 DR. NETON: Here's the situation: 

8 TBD-6001 specifies air concentration values. 

9 That is what would be used to establish the 

10 contamination levels in those types of 

11 facilities. 

12 So since we are going to generate 

13 facility-specific TBDs or documents, then the 

14 air concentration value would be included with 

15 them. So the cancellation of TBD-6001 really 

16 has no bearing on these findings anymore. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that's what 

18 we wanted to hear, Jim, is that, basically, 

19 the cancellation of 6001, these issues would 

20 still be addressed in the subsequent documents 

21 that are --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

258 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. NETON: Right, because the only 

2 thing there was I think SC&A was questioning 

3 the upper-bound value of the air concentration 

4 values cited for those facilities. And those 

5 would be documented independently in each of 

6 those facility-specific documents. 

7 DR. MAURO: But then we couldn't 

8 reference -- in other words, right now, in 

9 OTIB-70 you are saying that there are a couple 

10 of places where we have transferred the issue 

11 to TBD --

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Not in OTIB-70; in 

13 our findings. Basically, we had a few 

14 findings in OTIB-70 which were duplicate 

15 findings that were in TBD-6001. 

16 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

17 DR. NETON: I think the solution is 

18 to take those out of TIB-70. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, that's what we 

20 did. We had taken them out and we had sent 

21 them over to TBD-6001. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

259 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. NETON: No, no, no. I mean --

2 MR. MARSCHKE: But, based upon your 

3 discussion, what you just said, Jim, I would 

4 say that that still is valid. 

5 DR. MAURO: I was just going to 

6 come to the opposite conclusion. In other 

7 words, that they come back to OTIB-70 because 

8 we can't reference 6001 any longer. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Why are we 

10 referencing it? 

11 DR. MAURO: In other words, you are 

12 saying that they were, effectively, being 

13 addressed in TBD -- unless I'm not following 

14 this. 

15 Help me out somebody. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: The Chair has made an 

17 error here in even attempting to shortcut our 

18 process of going through these one step at a 

19 time. Clearly, what we are going to need to 

20 do is to look at each of these issues and at 

21 the point of each issue determine whether we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

260 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 can or cannot accept the current 

2 recommendation based primarily on whether or 

3 not we are referencing a transfer to 6001, 

4 which no longer exists. 

5 DR. MAURO: I think you're right, 

6 Wanda. I think we have just got to bite the 

7 bullet and do it. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Let's just go back to 

9 No. 3 and take a look at what our statement is 

10 in No. 3 and see what we can do. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Question. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Paul? 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Before you do that, 

14 maybe I will direct this toward Jim Neton. 

15 Jim, it seems to me on the source 

16 term depletion factor, it would make sense 

17 that there might be several of these, then, 

18 for different conditions. I agree that the 1 

19 percent doesn't seem to make sense for a 

20 relatively clean facility with a resuspension 

21 of ten to the minus six, whereas it might for 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

261 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 another facility with close to ten to the 

2 minus fourth loading. 

3 So, is it your thought that you 

4 might have two or more depletion factors, 

5 depending on which of those scenarios you are 

6 talking about? 

7 DR. NETON: Well, I would think 

8 that we would end up being more generic in 

9 TIB-70 in outlining the approach, which is to 

10 use a resuspension factor and air turnover 

11 rate, et cetera, on a facility-specific basis. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. In other 

13 words, not specify a number, but a 

14 methodology? 

15 DR. NETON: Exactly. Because then 

16 you're not locked into something like we are 

17 now. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

19 DR. NETON: And people are critical 

20 of those things --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

262 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. NETON: Because they are not 

2 applicable across the board. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And there's 

4 other factors. Hans mentioned, for example, 

5 the ventilation system being up high and the 

6 exposure to the workers at the floor level or 

7 slightly above, although even in that case, 

8 the respirable particles, which are the small 

9 ones, are more likely to find their way up to 

10 a higher level in a facility and be 

11 preferentially removed as opposed to the non12 respirable particles. 

13 DR. NETON: Right. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, there's effect 

15 on the distribution as well. 

16 But, in any event, that makes 

17 sense, then. You would develop a methodology 

18 which would be used, and that gives 

19 flexibility on what you use both for the 

20 resuspension and for the depletion. 

21 DR. NETON: Exactly. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

263 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Let's take a look at 

3 No. 3. And I will try to save Steve's voice a 

4 little bit by reading the original finding and 

5 reading the most recent response to where 

6 we've gone. 

7 This is OTIB-70, Finding No. 3, 

8 Internal Review Objective 6.1, 6.2, and 7.3. 

9 "Inappropriate assumption regarding the impact 

10 of ventilation on source term depletion 

11 implicit in Equation 5 employed by NIOSH for 

12 deriving the value of" -- I'm assuming that's 

13 lambda, but the source term depletion rate. 

14 "Is that airborne contaminants are, one, 

15 uniformly distributed throughout the interior 

16 volume of a facility and, two, removed with 

17 100 percent efficiency. Neither of these 

18 assumptions is likely to exist." 

19 And the most recent response, 

20 Thurber for SC&A. "The ORAU statement that 

21 `the OTIB does not indicate that the source 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

264 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 half-life should be calculated from these 

2 input factors and subsequently applied' does 

3 not appear to be correct. For Section 3.1.1, 

4 `a source term depletion factor of 1 percent 

5 of the surface activity per day based on 

6 Section 2.6 is suggested for this purpose.' 

7 For Section 3.1.5, `if no data are available 

8 for airborne radioactivity levels during the 

9 residual period, a source term depletion 

10 factor of 1 percent per day (Section 2.6) can 

11 be used in conjunction with the available 

12 operational period data.' 

13 "SC&A recommends that this finding 

14 remain in progress." 

15 DR. MAURO: Wanda, that is going to 

16 be swept up in the work that Jim described. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: I agree. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: So, we will leave --

20 MR. THURBER: And this comment was 

21 really specific to the ORAU response, and we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

265 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 just didn't agree that the ORAU was correct 

2 and consistent with the words in the document. 

3 I agree that it will be cleaned up. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 

5 DR. MAURO: Wanda, we probably 

6 could go quickly identify those issues that 

7 are going to be captured by Jim when he 

8 revisits this whole matter and those issues 

9 that maybe we had better take a look at, like 

10 the TBD-6001 issue. So, yes, we probably 

11 could knock these off pretty fast. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: So, 03 remains as is? 

13 We're not going to do anything with it? 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Item No. 4? 

16 DR. MAURO: It's closed. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, is it? 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically, yes, we 

19 agreed with the ORAU comment and recommended 

20 that the finding be closed. 

21 Do you want me to read it? Do you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

266 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 want me to read this one? 

2 CHAIR MUNN: I don't believe so. 

3 We all have it in one form or another. 

4 Does anyone object to closing Item 

5 4? 

6 (No response.) 

7 Change status to closed. 

8 OTIB-70-05. And for some reason, 

9 it doesn't want to open for me. 

10 Internal Review Objective 1.5, 2.1, 

11 2.2, 7.1. "Attachment B sites survey data for 

12 three separate thorium facilities, but 

13 provides no further guidance on how these 

14 datasets are to be used. The three dataset 

15 identified values differ significantly, but 

16 there is no guidance for the dose 

17 reconstructor regarding their use." 

18 The response, the most recent from 

19 SC&A by Thurber, does not agree with the NIOSH 

20 response. "If an objective of OTIB-70 is to 

21 provide a claimant-favorable estimate of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

267 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 inhalation exposure during the residual 

2 period, then it would seem appropriate to use 

3 the Linsley facility data. OTIB-70 should be 

4 prescriptive in indicating how Attachment B 

5 should be used rather than simply providing 

6 three sets of data. 

7 "SC&A recommends that this finding 

8 remain in progress." 

9 For our purposes, there is no 

10 change, correct? 

11 MR. THURBER: Correct. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: We will leave that 

13 status as it is. 

14 The next finding, Finding 6, 

15 Internal Review Objective 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 

16 6.2, 7.3. 

17 "Use of Horizons' Summary Survey 

18 Data as a default value for operational air 

19 concentration at a thorium refining facility 

20 is inappropriate and not claimant-favorable." 

21 Response, the most recent: "is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

268 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 correct as ORAU states that Horizons' data are 

2 not proposed as default values. However, 

3 SC&A, via Thurber, believes that a more 

4 prescriptive approach, as described under 

5 SC&A's response to Item 6 above, is needed. 

6 "SC&A recommends that this finding 

7 remain in progress." 

8 MR. THURBER: That should be Item 

9 5, I guess. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. That is 

11 puzzling. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Five above?" This 

13 is 5. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: This is 6. 

15 MR. THURBER: Yes, 6. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: We're reading 6. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, yes. 

18 MR. THURBER: It should read --

19 CHAIR MUNN: It should read "5 

20 above." 

21 MR. THURBER: "As described in our 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

269 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 response to 5 above." 

2 CHAIR MUNN: So, with that change, 

3 this item remains as it is for our purposes. 

4 No action on it. 

5 Item 7, Internal Review Objective 

6 1.3. 

7 "On the assumption that the 

8 geometric mean value of 4.8 dpm per meter 

9 cubed cited for Horizons in Attachment B of 

10 OTIB-70 reflects data contained in Exhibit No. 

11 5, it is unclear how this value was derived by 

12 NIOSH." 

13 Most recent response from SC&A, via 

14 Thurber, agrees with NIOSH "that operational 

15 and process data should not be used as the 

16 basis for calculating residual exposures. 

17 SC&A has reviewed and accepted the data and 

18 spreadsheet provided by NIOSH. 

19 "SC&A recommends this status be 

20 changed to closed." 

21 Is there any concern about closing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

270 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Item 7? 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: No concern. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: If not, closed. 

4 Change status. 

5 We will go to Item 8. Internal 

6 Review Objective 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 7.3. 

7 "Use of Horizons' Summary Data 

8 Survey" -- no, wait. Wait, wait. I'm back on 

9 6. I asked for 8 and I got 6. Sorry about 

10 that. 

11 This is Internal Review Objective 

12 1.3. 

13 "The derivation of air 

14 concentration values cited in Attachment B for 

15 nuclear materials was not adequately explained 

16 by NIOSH and does not appear to correspond to 

17 values reported in the survey, as given in 

18 Tables 3 and 4." 

19 The most recent response from 

20 Thurber for SC&A agrees with NIOSH "that 

21 operator and process data should not be used 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

271 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 as the basis for calculating residual 

2 exposures. SC&A reviewed and accepted the 

3 data and spreadsheet provided by NIOSH. 

4 "SC&A recommends that the status be 

5 changed to closed." 

6 Any objection to changing the 

7 status to closed? 

8 If not, 8 becomes closed, and we go 

9 on to 9, which is Internal Review Objective 

10 1.3. 

11 "The derivation of air 

12 concentration values cited in Attachment B for 

13 Linsley was not adequately explained by NIOSH, 

14 and values does not appear to correspond to 

15 those reported in the survey." 

16 I should have said, "does sic," "do 

17 not appear." 

18 The most recent response from 

19 Thurber for SC&A agrees with NIOSH "that 

20 operational process data should not be used as 

21 the basis for calculating residual exposures. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

272 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 SC&A has reviewed and accepted the data and 

2 spreadsheet provided by NIOSH. 

3 "SC&A recommends the status be 

4 changed to closed." 

5 Any concern with closing Item 9? 

6 If not, it is now --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, by 

8 convention, didn't we promise to make this 

9 change in the next revision of the procedure? 

10 Is that what our response is? Or have we 

11 done that? Our response on No. 9. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Let me see what it 

13 says here. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, "A slight 

15 change to the parameters listed in Appendix B 

16 is warranted and will be published in the next 

17 revision of the procedure." 

18 CHAIR MUNN: So, this actually 

19 should --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: So, I mean it's 

21 pretty trivial -- if you wanted to close it, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

273 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 it wouldn't really hurt anything, but, by 

2 convention, it would be in abeyance. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: We promised we were 

5 going to edit a document. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: It should be in 

7 abeyance, yes. Let's follow our own 

8 conventions when we can. 

9 The next item is Finding No. 10. 

10 Internal Review Objective 1.3, 6.1, 6.2, 7.3. 

11 "NIOSH has recommended a 

12 resuspension factor of ten to the minus six 

13 per meter is inappropriate. Indoor 

14 resuspension factors" -- now this is going to 

15 be covered by our previous concerns, is it 

16 not? 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: So, this has a long 

19 response to it, but we will remain in progress 

20 until we have seen what the discussion is 

21 going to bring us. So, for our purposes, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

274 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 there's no change. 

2 We'll go to Item 11. Internal 

3 Review Objective 1.3. 

4 "Use of NUREG-1400 as stated in 

5 OTIB-70 is both inappropriate and technically 

6 not feasible since the total absence of data 

7 precludes a quantitative assignment to the 

8 Source Term Q that reflects residual 

9 contamination." 

10 This is a significant response 

11 here. "Since we're talking about the 

12 NUREG-1400 method, this may or my not" --

13 let's read through this. 

14 Thurber response for SC&A: 

15 "According to Section 2.2 of OTIB-70, intake 

16 equals Q times one times ten to the minus six 

17 times R times C times D. Default values for 

18 R, C, and D are provided in the NIOSH 

19 document. Q is the total quantity of 

20 unencapsulated material processed in a year 

21 (NUREG-1400). It is not clear how this method 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

275 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 would be implemented. Would the dose 

2 reconstructor take the total number of curies 

3 handled in the final year of operations and 

4 assume that this remains constant during the 

5 residual period?" 

6 DR. NETON: Wanda, this is Jim. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

8 DR. NETON: I think I can shorten 

9 this a little bit. 

10 We're going to go back and relook 

11 at the reasonableness of 1400. I don't think 

12 we have ever used it in a residual 

13 contamination context. So, we would agree to 

14 go back and relook at that and its scientific 

15 soundness for residual contamination. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: So, the issue with 

17 NUREG-1400 is going to be a part of what your 

18 revisit is about? 

19 DR. NETON: Well, it's a separate 

20 issue because it doesn't rely on any of these 

21 resuspension factors, but it does sort of. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

276 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 But, like I say, I don't think that we have 

2 ever used it. It was put in the toolbox for 

3 completeness, and I think we might want to 

4 rethink leaving it in there, my opinion at 

5 this point. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. It did not 

7 appear to me to be the identical issue that we 

8 were talking about before. That's why I was 

9 reading it. 

10 DR. NETON: No, it's actually a 

11 separate issue. It is sort of an outlier to 

12 the approaches that are outlined there, and it 

13 was thrown in for completeness' sake. And 

14 like I say, I don't know that we have ever 

15 used it. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: In my notes, I'm going 

17 to include this as one of the things you're 

18 going to be looking at. 

19 DR. NETON: Yes. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: And it will remain in 

21 progress. So, there will be no change from 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

277 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 our perspective here in the Subcommittee. 

2 The next one is one that is 

3 addressed in a different finding, and our most 

4 recent suggestion "understands the issues to 

5 be resolved by TBD-6000. NIOSH prepared a 

6 White Paper showing the default values for 

7 surface contamination used in TBD-6000 from 

8 Harris and Kingsley are bounding when compared 

9 to the data in the Adley report." 

10 So, they recommend changing the 

11 status to closed. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't know if we 

13 can do that. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: I don't know either. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically, this is 

16 one of the ones that we sent over to the 

17 TBD-6000 Work Group. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: And again, what 

20 we're saying here is that we think, basically, 

21 this White Paper by Harris and Kingsley or 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

278 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 this NIOSH White Paper based on Harris and 

2 Kingsley resolved the issue. Unless the 

3 TBD-6000 Work Group maybe tells this 

4 Subcommittee that that is, in fact, true, I 

5 don't know if we can close it. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: It seems unreasonable 

7 for us to do so. Based on our own 

8 conventions, we really should keep it in 

9 abeyance. 

10 DR. MAURO: I recall looking 

11 carefully at David Allen's report related to 

12 this Adley and the TBD-6000 Work Group. And I 

13 think we discussed it and I think we closed 

14 that item on TBD-6000. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Did we? 

16 DR. MAURO: And therefore, it's 

17 closed here. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, there needs to 

19 be paperwork or a paper trail between the Work 

20 Groups. 

21 DR. MAURO: Oh, I see what you're 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

279 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 saying. Okay. 

2 MR. THURBER: Yes. Yes, that's 

3 correct, what you said, John and Steve, both. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: So, we need a note 

5 from the 6000 Work Group indicating that this 

6 item was closed. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'll send you an 

8 email. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: An email is the only 

10 thing that we usually use. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: So we'll have a 

12 paper trail on it. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And then we can 

14 incorporate it easily. 

15 Finding 13 relative to 6001, for 

16 determining inhalation doses, "may not be 

17 claimant-favorable under Task Order 3." 

18 Now here's, I guess, where we had 

19 the discussion about what to do with 6001. 

20 The most recent response from SC&A by Thurber 

21 points out there may be a procedural problem 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

280 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 here. 

2 "NIOSH has decided to eliminate 

3 TBD-6001. Appendices to that document will be 

4 revisited and reissued as separate Site 

5 Profiles." 

6 "With regard to SC&A's expressed 

7 concern about inhalation doses in TBD-6001 

8 prior to 1948, the issue was how to 

9 extrapolate doses backward in time. However, 

10 in the context of OTIB-70, this would only be 

11 a problem if the residual period at a site 

12 began prior to 1948," which seems unlikely to 

13 me. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: The question of the 

15 status of this issue right now is addressed 

16 in, I think it's addressed in finding, it's 

17 addressed in Finding TBD-6001. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: But this was a 

19 generic approach to something which is not 

20 going to be used anymore. 

21 So, it seems to me that it's no 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

281 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 longer an issue because each case is going to 

2 be dealt with on its own merits. 

3 DR. NETON: This is Jim. 

4 I think we ought to put this one 

5 back onto NIOSH and the Work Group should hold 

6 onto it. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think we need 

8 to have it until we get some piece of paper 

9 from you saying that that's what going to 

10 happen. 

11 DR. NETON: Yes, because I'm 

12 looking at the relevant pages, page 13 and 14 

13 in TIB-70, and I had forgotten this, but, 

14 apparently, it is more than just the air 

15 sample values that are used. There are 

16 actually residual contamination estimates in 

17 those documents. 

18 So, if we pull them out of 

19 TBD-6001, I don't know -- we're going to have 

20 to modify TIB-70 in some way to address that. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly It seems to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

282 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 me rather than "addressed in finding," we need 

2 to go back to "in progress" for this. 

3 DR. NETON: Yes, I think so because 

4 we need to go back and look a little closer at 

5 what was actually in 6001. It looks to me 

6 like it was actually recommended values for 

7 the residual contamination period. So, there 

8 was an approach in there that was developed. 

9 I suspect that it is similar to what's in 

10 TIB-70, but I'm not sure. 

11 MR. THURBER: But the original 

12 finding that Hans made was based on the fact 

13 that there were some problems, he observed 

14 some problems with 6001. And one of the 

15 problems was that, when we reviewed 6001, 

16 there was no or very little data prior to 

17 1948, and NIOSH proposed a method for 

18 extrapolating backwards in time to cover 

19 situations prior to 1948. 

20 And in our review of 6001, we said 

21 we don't think that the procedure proposed to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

283 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 extrapolate backwards in time is 

2 scientifically justifiable. So, that's how it 

3 got woven into OTIB-70, because it was an open 

4 issue that we had already commented on with 

5 regard to 6001. 

6 Now, as we noted here, if it can be 

7 shown that there are no residual periods prior 

8 to 1948, then the comment is irrelevant. 

9 DR. NETON: I agree, but, again, 

10 looking at TIB-70 itself, we have a statement 

11 that references TBD-6001 and actually has the 

12 table out of there in the documents. 

13 MR. THURBER: Oh, okay. 

14 DR. NETON: We've got to at least 

15 pull that table out. 

16 MR. THURBER: Right. 

17 DR. NETON: And then rethink about 

18 what we want to say about residual 

19 contamination at thorium facilities. 

20 MR. THURBER: Right. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: This is one of those 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

284 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 situations where the Chair believes this item 

2 should be kept in progress, and that we should 

3 have for our own sake a comment, a response, 

4 from the Subcommittee listed on our matrix 

5 indicating that the Subcommittee has returned 

6 this to NIOSH for resolution of the issue. 

7 And how NIOSH resolves that will be a result 

8 of the deliberations that take place when you 

9 look at the entire body of questions that 

10 we're raising. 

11 Steve, is it possible for us, do we 

12 have a spot where we can --

13 MR. MARSCHKE: We can change it 

14 back to "in progress" from, basically, 

15 "addressed in finding." We can change it back 

16 to "in progress." 

17 CHAIR MUNN: In progress. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: And then I'll have 

19 to add -- this is No. 13 --

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Offline, I will add 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

285 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 a response. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: I'll add some words. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: If you would, that the 

5 Subcommittee has returned this issue to NIOSH 

6 for continued deliberation and resolution. 

7 Then, we will go to Item 14. 

8 DR. NETON: The same problem. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: The same thing as 

10 13, isn't it? 

11 DR. NETON: Yes. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: It appears to be. So, 

13 identical action on our part, identical change 

14 on our matrix to "in progress" from its 

15 current status as "covered in." 

16 Fourteen, use of Battelle TBD-6001 

17 for determining inhalation basis. 

18 MEMBER LEMEN: That's the one we 

19 just did. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: We just did 14. Why 

21 did I bring it up again? We did 13 and now 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

286 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 14. 

2 MEMBER LEMEN: We already did 14. 

3 So, now you're on 15. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Fifteen. 

5 MR. THURBER: Thirteen and 14 were 

6 basically the same issue. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Right, and have been 

8 returned to "in progress." 

9 Fifteen is TBD-9. Internal Review 

10 Objective 5.6, 7.3. 

11 "Many of the fundamental 

12 assumptions that form the technical basis of 

13 OCAS-TIB-9, ingestion model, are too 

14 restrictive and may yield low values under 

15 Task 3, NIOSH's ingestion model, as described 

16 in OCAS-TIB-9. 

17 "It was previously reviewed by 

18 SC&A, and a draft report issued May 30, 2006. 

19 In that review, SC&A concluded that NIOSH's 

20 model is simplistic and is likely to yield 

21 intakes that are too low for multiple reasons. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

287 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 However, issue TIB-9-01 has not been formally 

2 finalized and is thus, regarded here as a 

3 conditional issue." 

4 The latest response from SC&A via 

5 Thurber, "While the question has not been 

6 formally resolved, SC&A believes that use of 

7 OTIB-9 for the residual period is reasonable. 

8 Recommend changing the status to in 

9 abeyance." 

10 Any concern with that 

11 recommendation? 

12 If not, then it will go from "in 

13 progress" to "in abeyance." 

14 And that completes OTIB-70, 

15 correct? 

16 MEMBER LEMEN: Correct. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Does 

18 anyone have anything else to say about this 

19 before we move on? 

20 DR. MAURO: Is Jim still on the 

21 line? Jim? This is John. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

288 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. NETON: Yes. 

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, Jim, on that last 

3 item, we may not -- I'll be brief. The OTIB-9 

4 approach to ingestion, our position is that, 

5 and I think we discussed this, but we really 

6 never closed it down. 

7 DR. NETON: Right. 

8 DR. MAURO: It is that the approach 

9 is fine when you have very little 

10 contamination. It may be in a residual 

11 period; it's been cleaned up. 

12 DR. NETON: Right. 

13 DR. MAURO: But if you were in a 

14 dirty environment, going with the OTIB-9, at 

15 least our position is still that your 

16 ingestion is probably too low, maybe by a 

17 factor of 10 or more. So, we are halfway 

18 home. 

19 DR. NETON: Yes. 

20 DR. MAURO: We agreed that I think 

21 you can go with OTIB-9 when you have a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

289 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 relatively clean environment. 

2 DR. NETON: I'm hoping, if we wait 

3 long enough, you guys will totally agree with 

4 me. 

5 (Laughter.) 

6 No, I understand what you're 

7 saying. My idea here is to close this out 

8 with an appendix to TIB-9 which documents our 

9 position. And it may end up being that we 

10 will agree to disagree on the higher levels, 

11 but we will try to shore that up a little bit 

12 when we write it up. 

13 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

14 DR. NETON: Appreciate that. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: All right. The next 

16 item on our agenda is the big one that we have 

17 been working on for a while, the final edit of 

18 these four two-page summaries of OCAS-IG-2, 

19 OCAS-TIB-8, OCAUT-OTIB-66, and ORAUT-PROC-80. 

20 Do all of you have not only those, 

21 the edits that I sent you, but also the most 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

290 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 recent edits from SC&A that added to what we 

2 had? 

3 MR. KATZ: They were distributed. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Those were 

5 distributed, yes. I sent them --

6 MEMBER LEMEN: Are those the ones 

7 in red? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: I sent them to 

9 everyone. 

10 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, I got those. 

11 MR. KATZ: We have a three o'clock 

12 break on the agenda. Can we make use of it 

13 or --

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we certainly can 

15 make use of it. No question. Why not break? 

16 MR. KATZ: Ten minutes? 

17 CHAIR MUNN: A 10-minute break, 

18 back at 3:10. 

19 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

21 matter went off the record at 2:57 p.m. and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

291 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 resumed at 3:09 p.m.) 

2 MR. KATZ: For the record, Dr. 

3 Lemen has left us. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have both of our 

5 other Members on the line? 

6 MR. KATZ: Do we have Mark and Mike 

7 still? 

8 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, Ted, I'm here. 

9 This is Mike. 

10 MR. KATZ: Hi, Mike. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, Ted, I'm back 

12 on now. It's Mark. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. 

14 MR. KATZ: Great. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Do we all have the 

16 most recent edits of our four documents, 

17 starting with IG-2? 

18 We have been through these about 

19 four times now, trying to get them as simple 

20 as we can. What I have here right now has 

21 virtually no new changes. We've tried to hone 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

292 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 this down to the point where we are no longer 

2 using our verbatim findings, in an effort to 

3 try to simplify what the findings mean to the 

4 causal reader. 

5 What I am looking at, however, 

6 still has, the copy that I am looking at still 

7 has a number of section references which we 

8 had earlier indicated we were going to try to 

9 remove. And I have not removed them. 

10 Are we still of a mind that the 

11 section references should come out? Because 

12 that's an easy-enough fix for me to do before 

13 we present this again to the full Board with 

14 the request on our telephone call that they 

15 approve them. Is that still our desire, that 

16 I take those section numbers out? 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think it's not 

18 important to have the section numbers. 

19 However, you would have to reconstruct these. 

20 You don't want to say, "Finding 5 does not 

21 provide adequate guidance." 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

293 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: You would have to 

3 say the document, or something, does not --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes, we would 

5 say --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: For all of those. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Essentially, that's 

8 what we would say. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: In Finding 6, you 

10 might still want to leave in figure 2. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. That would make 

12 sense. But the other sections I think can 

13 come out easily and just simply the document 

14 provides or does not provide accurately or 

15 inaccurately, as we have done in Finding 2. 

16 That will take care of that. 

17 Any other comments or concerns with 

18 respect to this one? Yes, Paul? 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: There are some 

20 places where we probably don't need to give 

21 acronyms. If something's not repeated, like 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

294 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 the Energy Employees Occupational Compensation 

2 Program Act of 2000, EEOICPA, unless we're 

3 using that again, which I don't think we are, 

4 we can drop the EEOICPA. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we can. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: And the same is 

7 probably true of ICRP-71. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we had a 

9 discussion about ICRP, remember, and --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. ICRP is 

11 referred to twice in the document. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: The first time it's 

14 given as ICRP-71. The second time it's 

15 another ICRP is given. So, I don't think you 

16 need both the second time, either one or the 

17 other. I mean it's redundant, right? 

18 CHAIR MUNN: It is. Everything 

19 that we can remove from this, we should. And 

20 I guess it would be my preference, since we 

21 already have the full title in the text in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

295 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 both places, it would be my preference to just 

2 simply remove the parenthetical ICRP-71, if 

3 that's agreeable to everybody. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Wait, wait, wait. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Finding No. 2. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding No. 2, just 

7 take away the --

8 CHAIR MUNN: Right at the tail-end 

9 of it, it says, we're referring to the 

10 International Commission on Radiation 

11 Protection Publication 71. And, then, again 

12 down in Resolution of Findings No. 2, we refer 

13 to "International Commission on Radiological 

14 Protection (ICRP)." 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: So, you want to put, 

16 in Finding No. 2, do you want to put, after 

17 "International Commission on Radiological 

18 Protection," you want to put "ICRP" --

19 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: And, then, get rid 

21 of the parenthetical at the end of it? And, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

296 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 then, when you get back to the bottom, down in 

2 the findings just put "ICRP" as opposed --

3 CHAIR MUNN: No, I want to remove 

4 the parenthetical in both cases. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay, and leave the 

6 whole spelled out? 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Since we've already 

8 spelled it out in both cases and it doesn't 

9 create a problem, why not? 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. So, we get 

11 rid of the parenthetical on both. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Those FLAs and TLAs, 

13 four-letter and three-letter acronyms, have a 

14 tendency to throw casual readers off. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Throw people off. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: If we spelled it out 

17 already, then we don't have an issue. 

18 Are we good to go with that one? 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do we need to 

20 repeat -- wait a minute. There's a "NIOSH" 

21 and a "DCAS" in here, too. Did we get rid of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

297 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 those? I guess "NIOSH" is repeated, so maybe 

2 we leave that in. DCAS, is "DCAS" used later? 

3 CHAIR MUNN: I don't see it right 

4 now. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's paragraph 3, 

6 line 7, gives "Division of Compensation 

7 Analysis and Support, DCAS," but if we never 

8 use DCAS again, which I don't think we do, 

9 then we don't need it. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: No, it's not used 

11 again, according to the findings. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: I'm not finding it. 

13 Paragraph 3? 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: 

15 no, paragraph 3, line 7. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: 

17 looking at the same thing? 

18 at the same thing. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: 

It's paragraph 4, 

Oh, my. Are we 

We're not looking 

Well, these line 

20 numbers can change because you had the copy 

21 that's --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

298 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: But I don't have 

2 "DCAS" on mine at all. What I have for 

3 paragraph 3 right now is, "Under the Energy 

4 Employees Occupational Illness and 

5 Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), an 

6 estimate must be made of the dose to a 

7 particular tissue or organ where the 

8 cancer" --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's different 

10 than my whole paragraph. 

11 DR. OSTROW: Paul, this is Steve 

12 Ostrow. 

13 I think Wanda is looking at the 

14 version that she had put out while Paul is 

15 looking at the version that SC&A had marked 

16 up. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: I had hoped that I was 

18 looking at the most recent version. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: The most recent 

20 version should have "SC&A 12-30-10" at the end 

21 of the file name. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

299 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I recall that. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: At the end of the 

3 file name? 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: In parentheses. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: I recall that. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: It won't show on a 

7 printout. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: What's on the screen 

9 here is Steve Ostrow's most recent version, 

10 the SC&A --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that's the one 

12 I'm looking at. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: There's the DCAS 

15 there. 

16 DR. OSTROW: That's what Paul is 

17 looking at. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and that's what I 

20 thought I had. Did I transmit it? 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the paragraph 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

300 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 you read was slightly different than what I 

2 see here. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Well, yes. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now the other thing 

5 is, where it gives the title and then the OCAS 

6 number again, do we need to give that number 

7 again? It's in the title of the document. 

8 And then every time we come to it, we repeat 

9 both of those. 

10 See, there is it again, Steve. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Right, I see it. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't see any 

13 point in repeating it every time we use it. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: My electronics are 

15 mistreating me here. Sorry to hold you up. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Or I can forward 

17 you Steve's December 30th --

18 CHAIR MUNN: No, I have it. I have 

19 it. I'm just trying to pull it up. I'm being 

20 talked to not very smartly by my own system. 

21 I'll just go back to where I sent it out. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

301 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Now maybe we can get all on the 

2 right page. I just simply sent it out and 

3 didn't file it properly. 

4 All right. Now we were back to 

5 taking out "DCAS." All right, we can remove 

6 "DCAS." 

7 DR. OSTROW: I have a comment on 

8 that. This is Steve. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

10 DR. OSTROW: I would like to leave 

11 "DCAS" in there, if possible, because the 

12 reason I put it there is because if someone is 

13 new to the program like a claimant and they 

14 want to check on how we resolved this 

15 procedure, "DCAS" and "OCAS" are common -- the 

16 program. So I thought that it would be 

17 helpful for somebody looking at this if they 

18 saw the word "DCAS" there and the footnote 

19 that it used to be OCAS. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Certainly, I 

21 appreciated the footnote with respect to the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

302 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 fact that it used to be OCAS. I had forgotten 

2 that this was the first place that occurred. 

3 I think that's appropriate because that has 

4 even confused some of us from time to time. 

5 Are we talking about a different agency or is 

6 it the same --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, hold on. 

8 Isn't there a cover thing that goes with all 

9 of these? 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, there is. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Doesn't that 

12 cover --

13 CHAIR MUNN: It talks about NIOSH, 

14 but I don't think it talks about either OCAS 

15 or DCAS. We could, of course, insert it in 

16 there. It isn't graven in stone yet. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I sort of 

18 don't object to it being in here, although if 

19 that's one of the functions of these things, 

20 the other ones don't provide that information. 

21 And it seems to me, if it's important generic 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

303 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 information for people that want to track 

2 these things, we either need a final thing 

3 down below that says if you wish to follow up 

4 on this, you can contact such-and-so, or else 

5 we include it in that initial introductory 

6 page that goes with everything. I don't think 

7 the burden should be on this one to provide 

8 that. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: No. No, you're 

10 probably correct. If I may volunteer myself 

11 to do so, I would be more than glad to go back 

12 to our introductory paragraphs and see that --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Either put it there 

14 or see if we need to add something. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: -- a statement similar 

16 to this goes in there, so that regardless of 

17 where a person starts reading, they will have 

18 that information in front of them. 

19 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve again. 

20 The four procedures that we marked up that 

21 you're looking at and, in addition, the 12 new 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

304 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 ones that we just sent you last week, all have 

2 this OCAS/DCAS part into it. It's repeated in 

3 every one of them. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and what we're 

5 saying, Steve, is we would like to get away 

6 from that by putting it into the introductory 

7 paragraphs that precede all of these 

8 documents, so that we will have covered that 

9 before we ever start to write the two-pager. 

10 DR. OSTROW: Okay. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: The footnote goes 

12 away. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, the footnote 

14 would then go away. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: But what about the 

16 DCAS? Does that go away or, like Steve said, 

17 that's a handy term for people who are 

18 familiar with -- that's a term that some of 

19 the claimants and those types of people will 

20 be familiar with and may feel comfortable 

21 seeing. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

305 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Well, there's 

2 certainly no harm leaving it there. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: So just the footnote 

4 goes away. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: What goes away? 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: The footnote. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: The footnote below it 

8 that says "Formerly known" --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I see. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because you're 

12 going to cover that elsewhere? 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, that's been 

15 covered elsewhere. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: That's what I'm going 

17 to cover with the footnote, I mean with the 

18 additional comment. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Can I add a couple 

20 of other things then? 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

306 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: At the very 

2 beginning, we talked about the Department of 

3 Energy and then DOE. Do we need the "DOE?" 

4 Do we need the "AWE" for Atomic Weapons 

5 Employer? 

6 One of the things we were trying to 

7 do is eliminate acronyms. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we are. And I 

9 don't see either "DOE" or "AWE" repeated 

10 elsewhere in the --- so, you're correct, we 

11 can remove it. "DOE" can come out. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Another comment is 

13 on the third resolution. First, all the 

14 thoriums, we don't capitalize elements unless 

15 they're abbreviations. So those should be 

16 lowercase. 

17 But I am wondering, as I read 

18 through Resolution 3, I think it's very 

19 confusing. It's not clear to me that a sixth20 grade-level reader, or whoever, is going to 

21 know what we're talking about there. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

307 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Couldn't we just say that, "Decided 

2 no revision of the guideline is in order since 

3 the finding refers only to an example?" And 

4 just leave it there? 

5 CHAIR MUNN: I certainly agree that 

6 the casual reader would have --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean read the 

8 next sentence. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, if you 

11 don't know anything about radioactivity --

12 "NIOSH indicated that the quotation from the 

13 procedure assumes the established fact that 

14 thorium-232 gamma-emitting decay products --

15 naturally existed at all times in known 

16 quantities relative to the thorium-232 

17 present." 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I had to read that 

20 three times myself to figure out what it's 

21 saying, and I don't think it's -- well, that's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

308 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 my opinion of that. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: No, I think it is a 

3 valid opinion, and I certainly agree with it. 

4 Does anyone have any grief with our 

5 removing that and leaving only the first 

6 sentence there? 

7 (No response.) 

8 If not, it is gone. 

9 Any other comments or edits? 

10 (No response.) 

11 If not, then I will go through this 

12 one more time and send it out to you before we 

13 need to send it to the full Board to provide 

14 it to them for the report, asking for their 

15 approval. 

16 So remember what we have done here. 

17 And if you find that I have made corrections 

18 erroneously, please call it to my attention 

19 promptly. 

20 If not, then we will call that one 

21 good. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

309 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 And we will go on to the next one. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which is? 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Which is TIB-8. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a comment. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Go right ahead. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Actually, on all of 

7 these, I did want to compliment SC&A. I think 

8 they have done a good job of making these both 

9 concise and more readable. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Absolutely. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: So any editorials 

12 I'm proposing are in that spirit. I think 

13 these are much, much closer to what we are 

14 looking for. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: They certainly are. I 

16 thank everyone involved. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought I would 

18 compliment them on that. 

19 On this one, again, I don't think 

20 we need the "DOE" and the "AWE" at the 

21 beginning because those are not repeated, and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

310 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 we want to eliminate acronyms. 

2 One of the difficulties I felt on 

3 this first page is the following, and it 

4 starts in paragraph 1, where they talk about 

5 radioactive particles and then a little later 

6 talking about the same thing, talked about 

7 radionuclides attached to these particles. 

8 And then in the next paragraph, airborne 

9 particles containing radionuclides. And then 

10 in the third paragraph, airborne 

11 radionuclides. 

12 And I think all of these are 

13 intended to refer to the same thing, but all 

14 of them have a slightly different connotation. 

15 Radioactive particles versus particles to 

16 which radionuclides are attached are slightly 

17 different. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: They are. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or airborne 

20 particles containing radionuclides. I'm only 

21 suggesting we select one of these and then 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

311 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 sort of be consistent on using the term. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: My preference would be 

3 radioactive particles. I think that conveys 

4 both the intent and a logical visualization 

5 for the reader. 

6 Does anyone have any objection to 

7 using radioactive particles? 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Tiny radioactive 

9 particles. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Beg your pardon? 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Tiny radioactive 

12 particles? 

13 CHAIR MUNN: No. Well, in the 

14 first place we say, "tiny radioactive 

15 particles," and that's reasonable because --

16 MR. MARSCHKE: That's what I was 

17 thinking, is the "tiny" redundant? 

18 MR. KATZ: "Tiny" is redundant, 

19 yes. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Can it be taken out? 

21 MR. KATZ: Particles are tiny by 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

312 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 definition. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it is tiny --

3 not necessarily. 

4 MR. KATZ: I mean we're talking 

5 about lay people, and particles are --

6 CHAIR MUNN: A particle to them 

7 could be a flake of ash, and we're not talking 

8 about flakes of ash. 

9 (Laughter.) 

10 It really isn't. 

11 MR. KATZ: I just doubt whether it 

12 makes a difference to the public, but --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we want to 

14 both be understandable and, as far as 

15 possible, scientifically correct. This says 

16 these particles travel much like dust 

17 particles. Well, the reason for that is in 

18 most cases they're attached to dust particles, 

19 although not always. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: And in order to do 

21 what we're talking about here --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

313 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: So to some extent, 

2 the second one, the radionuclides attached to 

3 these particles is also correct, and particles 

4 containing radionuclides is also correct. So 

5 in one sense, they're all correct depictions, 

6 but I think being consistent is more the issue 

7 in my mind. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: They are also all 

9 particles --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: -- and they are all 

12 tiny, and they are all radioactive. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: So basically you 

14 want to change what's highlighted, 

15 "radioactive" -- "radionuclides, i.e., 

16 radioactive elements attached to these 

17 particles," you want to change that to just 

18 "radioactive particles?" 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, in the body 

20 these radioactive particles decay, I guess is 

21 what you're saying. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

314 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: "Particles decay." 

3 Then we want to go down --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just say, "Airborne 

5 radioactive particles," I suppose. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: "Airborne 

8 radioactive particles." And then in the third 

9 paragraph, "Airborne" --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Radioactive 

11 particles." 

12 SC&A, are you okay with that? 

13 DR. OSTROW: It sounds good to me. 

14 This is Steve. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Before he 

16 left, Dick Lemen indicated to me he was 

17 concerned about, let's see, I think he said it 

18 applied to all of them, and maybe we're 

19 covering it, being consistent on when we use 

20 acronyms and didn't. I guess it was the same 

21 comment, I guess, on that. So those will be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

315 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 covered. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, do you want to 

3 get rid of "EEOICPA" here? 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we do. We do, 

5 indeed. 

6 DR. OSTROW: That's in every single 

7 procedure, so, universally, we should do that. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: And I got rid of the 

10 footnote about the OCAS/DCAS thing. 

11 DR. OSTROW: Yes, that's also in 

12 every two-pager. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. It won't be 

14 in any of them now. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now here in the 

16 third paragraph, we talk about ICRP 

17 Publication 66, but we don't tell them what 

18 ICRP is. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, we do. In the 

20 paragraph above it. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: The International 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

316 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Commission on Radiological Protection, we put 

2 "ICRP" --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, I got you. I 

4 got you. I missed that, yes. Yes. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: What you don't need 

6 -- well, yes, you do. Never mind. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think that one 

8 is so worded that we need to leave it pretty 

9 much the way it is. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Yes. 

11 Okay. On this one, Resolution of 

12 Findings, "NIOSH issued Revision 1, which 

13 addressed the concern satisfactorily." It 

14 seems to me that's really vague. It is like 

15 on the other one if we said that here are 

16 these 10 things. We almost did this, but we 

17 said they agreed to modify, to accommodate the 

18 findings. That is pretty vague, too, now that 

19 I think about it. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, they rewrote the 

21 procedure to take care of, to make the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

317 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 guidance -- the findings in 1 or 2 was that 

2 the guidance wasn't always clear, and Finding 

3 No. 3 was the method doesn't follow ICRP 

4 recommendations. So they issued a revision of 

5 the procedure addressing all of the concerns 

6 that had been expressed, and I don't know what 

7 more you can say about it, actually, without 

8 going into specifics about what changes were 

9 made and where, which unduly complicates the 

10 message, I think. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Perhaps we should, 

13 maybe it would even be a little nicer to say, 

14 "which addressed all the concerns to the 

15 satisfaction of the Advisory Board." 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, yes, it 

17 should say that. It is sort of like, if we 

18 look at 080, where we give some discussion of 

19 sort of how they resolved -- what they did to 

20 satisfy, it's saying NIOSH responded to these 

21 by addressing all the issues. It doesn't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

318 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 really tell you --

2 CHAIR MUNN: To the satisfaction of 

3 the Advisory Board. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, yes. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Because all you can do 

6 is say they changed the procedure to improve 

7 the guidance and to follow the 

8 recommendations. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Now that 

10 has specificity to it, though. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's exactly my 

13 point. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Perhaps we should say 

15 exactly that, then. "NIOSH issued Revision 1 

16 of this procedure" --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: "A revision 

18 which" --

19 CHAIR MUNN: -- "to provide the 

20 necessary" --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- "provided clear 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

319 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 guidance and followed the ICRP 

2 recommendations," or something like that. I 

3 think specificity --

4 MR. MARSCHKE: How about something 

5 like that? "Which provided" --

6 CHAIR MUNN: "Which provided clear 

7 guidance where necessary and revised the 

8 method to adhere to" --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: "And followed 

10 ICRP-66 recommendations for assigning dose" --

11 CHAIR MUNN: Just to follow ICRP 

12 recommendations, I think, isn't it? 

13 MR. KATZ: That seems good. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: So it would say, "In 

15 response to the findings identified above, 

16 NIOSH issued Revision 1 of this procedure, 

17 which provided clear guidance where necessary 

18 and revised the methods used." 

19 MR. KATZ: If you read, Wanda, what 

20 Steve's got written up here, "where necessary, 

21 and follow the ICRP-66 recommendations for 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

320 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 assigning dose to mouth, nose, and throat to 

2 the satisfaction of the Advisory Board." 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. He said more 

4 than I was going to. 

5 DR. OSTROW: It's Steve Ostrow. I 

6 would make a comment that it should be in the 

7 present tense. "Revision 1 provides." It 

8 still does provide; it's not in the past, 

9 "provided." 

10 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: And you want to take 

12 out the procedure number in this last -- well, 

13 what do we need this last sentence for? 

14 CHAIR MUNN: No. It's one of the 

15 things that we've just -- it's kind of an 

16 exclamation point at the end of several of 

17 these we've said. So everything is closed, 

18 but it is necessary, I suppose. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think we had 

20 that in the last one we looked at. 

21 MR. KATZ: You don't -- it's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

321 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 superfluous. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Actually, the other 

3 ones do have that. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, the one we 

5 just got done looking at didn't have all of 

6 it. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: The other two do. 

8 "All issues were resolved to the satisfaction 

9 of the Board." 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, that's what --

11 we always say that. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Do you see that? 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, this other one 

15 said all issues are closed. 

16 MR. KATZ: In this case, we already 

17 say it, like Steve is saying, it is said above 

18 and it's said with some specificity, which is 

19 nice. So I think you're done. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Wait a minute. Wait 

21 a minute. Well, wait a minute. We don't say 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

322 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 -- we have to read that. "Which provides 

2 clear guidance where necessary." "To the 

3 satisfaction of the Board" kind of doesn't fit 

4 there, does it? What's to the satisfaction of 

5 the Board? 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Make it two sentences. 

7 Period. Period. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Period. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: "All issues were 

10 resolved to the satisfaction of the Board." 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: And then you don't 

12 need this final sentence. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: No. Correct. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Do we want to give 

16 Joyce -- I mean, if Joyce is on the phone, do 

17 we want to check and see? And if she is, do 

18 we want to leave this for a second? 

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I'm on the phone. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Thank you, Joyce. 

21 Do we want to go to Report 44 and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

323 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 take advantage of the fact that she is here 

2 and come back to the two-pagers maybe in a 

3 little bit? 

4 CHAIR MUNN: We need to do that, 

5 yes, because we need to make sure that we get 

6 Joyce while we can. 

7 We're glad to hear you on board, 

8 Joyce. Thank you. 

9 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Thank you. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: We are going to be 

11 wanting your input not only on Report 44, but 

12 also on -- this morning, we postponed 

13 discussing OTIB-49, so that we could have the 

14 benefit of your wise counsel as well. 

15 DR. OSTROW: Wanda, it's OTIB-54 

16 that we postponed. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, we have two of 

18 them, I think, Steve. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we postponed both 

20 49 and 54. 

21 DR. OSTROW: Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

324 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I'm sorry. You 

2 postponed 49 and 44? I didn't understand. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Fifty-four, OTIB-54 

4 and OTIB-49. 

5 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: OTIB-54, we had 

7 postponed Items 14, 15, and 16. 

8 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. Let me get 

9 it. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I had it as 17 and 

11 19. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: That's 54. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Yes, on 54. 

14 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. Let me just 

15 state one thing. I noticed that there is a 

16 new OTIB-49 that was issued in the end of 

17 November 2010 which I haven't reviewed yet. 

18 Is it worthwhile to discuss the old 49 without 

19 reading the new one? 

20 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz 

21 Brackett. That was just a minor change. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

325 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 There was an error in an example that was in 

2 there. It shouldn't have a very large impact 

3 on the overall document. 

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I would recommend 

6 starting with 44. Which one would you like to 

7 start with, Joyce, 44? 

8 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Could be 44, if you 

9 want. Forty-four you want? Okay. Let's 

10 start. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Report 44. 

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay, 44 is 

13 analysis of bioassay data with a significant 

14 fraction of less than results. I want, first 

15 of all, to say that this was done with Harry 

16 Chmelynski, who is in statistics, and he was 

17 not able to be present at this call today. He 

18 has some health problems. So he asked me to 

19 be part of it. But most of the statistical 

20 part of it was done by him, so I'll try to --

21 when we read the OTIB-44, the statistical part 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

326 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 of methodology that was used was very well 

2 presented and very well done. It's an 

3 improvement, a big improvement over the --

4 methods that were proposed in Procedure 95. 

5 We also proposed methods for when 

6 the data were less than results. We had 

7 problems with OTIB-44 on the application of 

8 it, not on the statistical part of it. All 

9 the statistical part, the methodology, 

10 everything is very well done and very well 

11 presented. 

12 We would like some input from NIOSH 

13 on how to apply this data, for example, when 

14 the limit of detection is not well done -- not 

15 well known, as is often the case. For 

16 example, many times in many installations in 

17 the early times we don't know the limits of 

18 detection. Then the limits of detection, they 

19 were calculated years after, looking at the 

20 methods, and sometimes there is more than one 

21 limit of detection in one year; there are 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

327 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 other years where for several years in a row 

2 you have the same limit of detection. And we 

3 know that this is not often the case, and that 

4 presents one problem for the application of 

5 OTIB-44. 

6 The other problem is that this is -

7 - the limit of detections are randomly spread 

8 across workers' job types and work areas. For 

9 example, you can have some workers, they would 

10 work in an area where they could be more 

11 exposed than other workers, and there is no 

12 analysis of that. So it is like we are 

13 applying the same thing for all job types for 

14 all work areas without worrying that some of 

15 the positive results might relate to a special 

16 procedure. And then for these workers, the 

17 coworker model should be different, should be 

18 more applied to that specific job. 

19 Is that clear or should I detail 

20 further? Hello? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we're here. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

328 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. MARSCHKE: You kind of cut out 

2 there at first, I think. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it was a 

4 little in and out, but I'm a little bit at sea 

5 here in terms of where we're at in the process 

6 on Report 44. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, Report 44 is 

8 kind of a strange -- the review of Report 44 

9 was kind of a strange beast, I guess, because 

10 both this Subcommittee asked us to look at it 

11 and the SRS Work Group asked us to look at it. 

12 And the findings that we have here 

13 kind of are geared toward both this 

14 Subcommittee and the SRS. You will see 

15 Finding No. 3 talks about SRS data, and so on 

16 and so forth. 

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. Yes. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: So perhaps Finding 

19 No. 3 would be appropriate to go over to the 

20 SRS Work Group. 

21 Mark, are you on the --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

329 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. KATZ: Yes, he chairs it. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, he chairs the 

3 SRS Work Group. I just want to see if he 

4 understands, if that's his understanding as 

5 well. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: It has come up in 

7 our Work Group, and we are taking that on, 

8 yes. That's definitely one of our action 

9 items. So it may make sense for this 

10 Procedures Group to wait for us on that. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: We were hoping to have 

12 this added to our database by now, but because 

13 we had a bit of a problem with our IT folks 

14 and getting this where we needed to have it, 

15 Steve wasn't able to make the additions that 

16 we were going to have to the database we're 

17 working from now. So we're working solely 

18 from the SC&A findings document. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: And that's the other 

20 thing. Really, we haven't gotten any feedback 

21 from NIOSH as to, you know, we have these four 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

330 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 findings that Joyce explained and which are 

2 documented in the Executive Summary of the 

3 report. We haven't gotten any NIOSH initial 

4 responses back to these findings, I don't 

5 believe, either in this Subcommittee or, as 

6 far as I know, not in the SRS Work Group, 

7 either. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: No. This report has 

9 been hanging out. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I think it was 

11 issued on, let's see -- let me go back here --

12 November 12th. So it's been out for two 

13 months. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Was it submitted to 

15 this group, or was it submitted to Savannah 

16 River Work Group? 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: This is the 

18 transmittal letter. Basically, all our 

19 transmittal letters go from John Mauro to 

20 Ruben Cruz with everybody, all the Advisory 

21 Board Members, with this as the cc list. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

331 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So now you 

2 sent -- this was sent. What date was it sent? 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: The date on the 

4 transmittal letter is November 12th. I also 

5 believe that was the date that Nancy Johnson's 

6 email -- there should be an email from Nancy 

7 Johnson on November 12th. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

9 DR. LIPSZTEIN: May I just 

10 summarize what our main problem is. Our main 

11 problem is not with the statistical treatment 

12 of the data. I think it's very well done and 

13 very well explained, everything like that. 

14 Our problem is only on the 

15 application of this to the different 

16 installations. And there was an example from 

17 Savannah River Site. So that's why it has a 

18 lot of problems with application of it on the 

19 Savannah River Site. 

20 So I think that this procedure, to 

21 be applied to each installation, it has to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

332 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 explained how this is going to be applied. 

2 But we don't have any problems with the 

3 statistical treatment of the data. It is much 

4 better than the other document that this is 

5 supposed to substitute. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, we 

7 haven't prepared -- I mean we got in November 

8 -- we haven't prepared responses for it, 

9 either for this Group or for Savannah River, I 

10 don't think. So it will be on our action item 

11 list, and we will, since it was delivered not 

12 as a Savannah River delivery, but as a review 

13 of Report 44, we'll put it in here. We'll 

14 just have to get it in the database. 

15 Other than that, I don't know that 

16 we've undertaken to initiate responses on 

17 these anywhere. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: So from the 

19 Subcommittee's point of view, two actions are 

20 still to be taken care of. One is to get this 

21 on the database, and the other is to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

333 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 anticipate the NIOSH response to the findings. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Do we have 

4 anything else on Report 44 that we want Joyce 

5 to pursue at this juncture? Or do we now need 

6 to wait for her to see NIOSH responses? I'm 

7 assuming the latter, unless I hear to the 

8 contrary. 

9 All right, that's fine. Then have 

10 we given you an opportunity -- can we give you 

11 an opportunity, Joyce, to take a look at 

12 either OTIB-49 and OTIB-54, whichever of those 

13 is most convenient for you to begin with? 

14 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. Let me begin 

15 with 49, OTIB-49. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: The problem that I 

18 had with OTIB-49 that I don't know, Liz, if it 

19 was solved with this small clarification that 

20 you say on 49, it's not the essentials of the 

21 document. I think we had discussed a lot of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

334 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 TIB-49, and it's a well-accepted document for 

2 everybody. It was just, again, the 

3 application of OTIB-49 to some special cases 

4 where I didn't know exactly how to interpret -

5 - the specifications, how the dose 

6 reconstructor should do it in some special 

7 cases. 

8 Like, for example, someone that 

9 would be exposed in one year and then the 

10 following year, and then would stay three 

11 years without being, and then would be exposed 

12 again. So how to apply the factors that 

13 should -- the multiplying factors, the 

14 correction factors for the doses was just 

15 that, a clarification on -- for the dose 

16 reconstructors to make it clear how to apply 

17 the correction factors for calculating doses. 

18 So it is not a problem with the 

19 document itself, but on how to apply it in all 

20 cases it might happen. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

335 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Hinnefeld at NIOSH. Joyce, if I'm correct, 

2 you have just that one item left, right, that 

3 one concern left? 

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, exactly. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So part of 

6 my discussion on this is that one of these two 

7 findings should be able to be closed. You 

8 know, it was written as two findings, and then 

9 during the discussion, they kind of weaved 

10 together. So it's not real clear to me which 

11 finding to keep open and which one to close, 

12 but one of these could be closed. 

13 And then in order to fulfill, you 

14 know, to answer Joyce's question, I have to 

15 rely on ORAU, and I don't know that they're 

16 prepared today because I don't think we 

17 prepared them for this for today. But it has 

18 to do with the situation which is explained, I 

19 think pretty clearly, in the history of this 

20 finding about -- initial finding and responses 

21 back and forth. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

336 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 I think it's laid out pretty 

2 clearly what the situations are, and then 

3 Joyce described one just then, a person who --

4 this is about the, for those of us who may not 

5 be that familiar with it, this is the Super S 

6 plutonium dose correction factor, you know, 

7 how you adjust for the dose, given that you've 

8 got a set of bioassays and you now consider it 

9 to be Super S plutonium. What does that do? 

10 What do you do to that? And there's this 

11 factor you multiply, but the use of that 

12 factor expects that you're going to have this 

13 employment with exposure and bioassay and then 

14 an end of employment and then at some point 

15 later on a diagnosis. 

16 In this case, what Joyce proposed, 

17 well, what if you have essentially two pieces 

18 of employment with exposure? Employment with 

19 exposure and some break. What happens then? 

20 So that's the question to us that we'll have 

21 to provide back. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

337 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 I just want to make sure that we're 

2 clear that that is it. That is the one issue 

3 that we have to deal with. 

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, exactly. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. All right. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: In which case, it 

7 appears that we can close Item 2 by saying 

8 "Addressed in Finding 1." 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. Change it to 

10 "Addressed in Finding 1." 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Is that acceptable? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: That's certainly 

13 okay with me. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Anyone on the phone 

15 have any objection to that? 

16 (No response.) 

17 All right. Then we will remove 2 

18 from our active list and call it "Addressed in 

19 Finding 1." 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: A question. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

338 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, generically, is 

2 it the issue of different exposures separated 

3 by time? 

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Exactly. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Two being one 

6 possibility? I mean one could say, well, what 

7 about three? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it could be 

9 three, yes. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. But 

11 it's the issue of a gap between two sets of 

12 exposures. Okay. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Because the 

14 arithmetic that is described in the TIB 

15 doesn't envision that situation. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: And when you say a 

17 gap, you're talking about an employment gap? 

18 Because exposure-wise, it is very common to 

19 have a gap between intakes. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that I'm 

21 going to have to have --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

339 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Am I understanding 

2 that right, Joyce? 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, she's talking 

4 about either case. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Either case? 

6 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, either case, 

7 yes. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. In other 

9 words, the person might work with this 

10 material for, say, several months --

11 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- and then not 

13 work with it again for a year? 

14 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. I examined 

15 one case of dose reconstruction. Then I tried 

16 to apply exactly what was written in 49, and I 

17 had to do my own interpretation of what I 

18 thought was the right thing to do. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: It seemed to me you 

20 could have multiple gaps then. 

21 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

340 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

2 DR. LIPSZTEIN: So I think that the 

3 dose reconstructor shouldn't have any doubt 

4 and -- with his own opinion on how to apply 

5 the document. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: So we will continue to 

8 carry that item with the anticipation of the 

9 action being NIOSH now. Correct? 

10 And I will stop talking about 

11 technical talks necessary, right? 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Because we have for 

14 quite some time said that that was going to 

15 happen. 

16 All right. Then that leads us to 

17 OTIB-54, Joyce. 

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. I don't want 

19 to make you lose some time. I have to find --

20 I wasn't prepared for OTIB-54. I have to look 

21 on my notes. If you want to proceed with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

341 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 something else, I'll just look for it, where 

2 it is, so that you don't lose time with me 

3 trying to look for where it is, 54. Okay? 

4 CHAIR MUNN: That will be just 

5 fine. 

6 DR. MAURO: Steve, could you just 

7 apprise Joyce of which -- three items in 

8 OTIB-54 because we did deal with many of them? 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

10 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Just a minute. Just 

12 a minute, Joyce. Let me look. 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, that will make it 

14 a little easier for Joyce. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think it was 17 

17 and 19. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Seventeen and 19 were 

19 what I had recorded for 54. 

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. I'm looking 

21 here at my computer to find 54. So if you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

342 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 want to proceed on something else and then 

2 we'll come back to that so that I find it? 

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right. We'll bog 

4 ourselves down in something else here. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Joyce? 

6 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes? 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Do you also have the 

8 NIOSH responses to 17 and 19, to your original 

9 findings on OTIB-54? 

10 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I think so, yes. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. Good. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: All right then, while 

13 Joyce is looking for that, we can momentarily 

14 go back to our -- if I can get back there --

15 to our letters that we're trying to get 

16 through. We have done two of them. And now 

17 we should be able to, if I can find where I 

18 put them -- summaries. 

19 We've just done ICRP-66. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, but that was 

21 TIB-8. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

343 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: I'm sorry. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: TIB-8 is the one we 

3 just did. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: TIB-8 is the one that 

5 we did. 

6 And now -- doggone it. Now we're 

7 going to look at 66 coming up, correct? 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Correct. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: We have the same "DOE" 

10 and "AWE" issue in the first line. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then "ORAU" in 

12 about the fourth line. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: So we will take out 

14 "DOE" up there, and we will take out "AWE" up 

15 there. Do you want to take out "ORAU," too? 

16 All right, we're going to take that out. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: In the start of the 

18 third paragraph it says, "guidance in 

19 ORAUT-OTIB-66." Do you want to change that to 

20 "guidance in the document," or do you want to 

21 keep that? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

344 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: I would like to say 

2 "guidance in this document." 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: "Guidance in this 

4 document?" 

5 Later on in that same sentence, we 

6 define TBD, Technical Information Bulletin. 

7 Then if you go down to the next paragraph, we 

8 define TBD again. Can we remove --

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. In that first 

10 sentence under the summary headings --

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: -- let's remove the 

13 parenthetical expression there. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: You know, I don't know 

16 whether it's because I am unfamiliar with 

17 using OBT and SMT or not, but the use of those 

18 particular acronyms bothers me every time I 

19 run into it into this document. And I know 

20 that originally we left them there in an 

21 effort to shorten the number of characters we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

345 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 were using, but I'm tempted to remove the 

2 "OBT" and "SMT" references and just go ahead 

3 and spell out organically-bound tritium and 

4 stable metal tritides. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Actually, in the 

6 second paragraph, line five, you can just say 

7 "these compounds" because both of them are 

8 involved. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: So you don't have 

11 to repeat it, these compounds. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: And then the only 

13 place you have it is one place. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: One place later. 

15 You can say "from intakes of" --

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Stable metal 

17 tritides? 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, let's do. 

19 Instead of "SMTs," let's go ahead and say it. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Do you want to get 

21 rid of the parentheticals for the first place 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

346 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 up here? 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, unless someone 

3 has real objection to that. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or you can just say 

5 "intakes of tritium compounds." 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we're talking 

7 specifically about --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Yes. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: -- the behavior of the 

10 other different --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: In the third 

13 paragraph, you have the OTIB number for 

14 OTIB-11, and in Finding 1 you also have the 

15 OTIB number for OTIB-11. Do you want that in 

16 both places? Because we have been taking out 

17 the OTIB number for the OTIB itself. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Where were you 

19 talking, Steve? 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Here we have OTIB-11 

21 defined here --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

347 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: -- including the 

3 number. And then down here, under Finding 1, 

4 we also have OTIB-11, the name and the number, 

5 a second location. I see it would be good to 

6 put the name and a number in at least one 

7 location, so somebody would know the number 

8 you're talking about. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: But I don't know, I 

11 mean, for OTIB-66 itself we've only put the 

12 number in once. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: And we've been 

15 removing it every place else. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I can see no 

17 reason why the parenthetical underneath the 

18 summary needs to be there. Just leave the 

19 title, Tritium Calculated and Missed Dose 

20 Estimates 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, again, now we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

348 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 come back to the first. Here we refer to it 

2 by the number. 

3 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve Ostrow. 

4 I just want to make a comment. I just 

5 noticed in the first paragraph, I think it's 

6 the only procedure where it referred to the 

7 Oak Ridge Associated University Team. 

8 Everywhere else I've just called it NIOSH/DCAS 

9 and I used the same formulation. Here, for 

10 some reason, I used the Oak Ridge Team. I 

11 would change that to the same formulation I 

12 used in the other procedures, the NIOSH/DCAS 

13 formulation. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: We can hardly hear 

15 you, Steve. At least I can hardly hear you. 

16 I think I heard what you said, though. 

17 DR. OSTROW: Okay. I'll say it 

18 again. I think this is the only procedure 

19 where I used in the first paragraph that the 

20 procedure provided guidance of the Oak Ridge 

21 Associated University Team. Everywhere else 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

349 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 in all the other procedures I used the 

2 NIOSH/DCAS formulation. I would change this 

3 to the same as the other ones. Instead of 

4 referring to Oak Ridge Associated University 

5 refer to provides guidance to NIOSH/DCAS. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: So really, it's an 

7 ORAU document. Are they really providing 

8 guidance to NIOSH --

9 DR. OSTROW: Well, NIOSH and --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- or the dose 

11 reconstructors? 

12 DR. OSTROW: I just used the same 

13 formulation in all the procedures, including 

14 the other 12. I'm assuming that -- I guess to 

15 make it simple, just "provide guidance to 

16 NIOSH," and whoever works for NIOSH, I'm 

17 assuming they're taking the same guidance. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Just as a matter of 

19 semantics, we prefer that it be "guidance to 

20 the dose reconstructor." These documents 

21 provide guidance for people doing dose 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

350 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 reconstruction, not necessarily for us. I 

2 mean, yes, all the dose reconstructors work 

3 for us, but --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean it's 

5 "provide guidance to dose reconstructors" on 

6 how to assign --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: So do you want to read 

9 that sentence the way you want it to read? 

10 "The Technical Information Bulletin 

11 calculation of dose from intakes of special 

12 tritium compounds, ORAUT-OTIB-0066." From 

13 there, you want to say what? 

14 Can you just say "provides guidance 

15 on how to assign doses from intakes to special 

16 tritium compounds?" Do we have to have all 

17 that business of who they provide it to? Do 

18 we have to say "to the Oak Ridge Associated" 

19 --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. We're saying 

21 eliminate that and just "guidance to the dose 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

351 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 reconstructors" on how to assign doses. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Is that going to be 

3 -- I mean because the last two, the first two 

4 that we looked at, we had the same sentence, 

5 basically, guidance to the NIOSH Division of 

6 DCAS. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: My problem with 

8 that is that we are the approval authority on 

9 all these documents. It's not especially 

10 guidance to us. We endorse all these, and 

11 this is our word. I'm sorry I didn't mention 

12 it before. It didn't come to me before. 

13 But, to me, these technical 

14 documents are to guide dose reconstructors. 

15 It's not like ORAU providing guidance to us. 

16 ORAU prepares these documents as our 

17 contractor, just as anybody else would, and 

18 we're the ones who put our imprimatur on it 

19 and say this is the correct guidance, 

20 according to the program, for doing dose 

21 reconstruction. So in every case I think it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

352 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 should be "guidance to dose reconstructors." 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Do you want to say, 

3 basically, something along the lines that this 

4 NIOSH procedure provides supplemental guidance 

5 to the staff on how to calculate doses? 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I think you're 

7 better off not putting it in there, to be 

8 completely honestly. Because there are 

9 procedures that are our procedures, and there 

10 are procedures that are sort of ORAU 

11 procedures that carry an ORAU stamp on them. 

12 And I think you're better off just not saying 

13 it. 

14 I think that the documents, the 

15 technical documents, that describe how to do 

16 dose reconstruction provide guidance to dose 

17 reconstructors. The fact that it's us or ORAU 

18 or some other contractor really doesn't 

19 matter. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: I didn't even say to 

21 dose -- I --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

353 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Or guidance, I mean 

2 just "provide guidance" is okay with me. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I said, "The 

4 Technical Information Bulletin calculation of 

5 dose from intakes of special tritium 

6 compounds, ORAUT-OTIB-66, provides guidance on 

7 how to assign doses from intakes of special 

8 tritium compounds using worker urine bioassay 

9 results." 

10 Do they really care who they 

11 provide the instruction to? It tells you how 

12 to do it. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: So the other two 

14 that we just got done editing --

15 CHAIR MUNN: No, let's don't go 

16 back to those. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I would 

18 rather they not say "provide recommendation to 

19 NIOSH." I would rather they not say that. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I'll double21 check to make sure they don't say that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

354 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, they do right 

2 now. The 008 says, "This procedure provides 

3 supplemental guidance to NIOSH/DCAS staff on 

4 how to calculate doses to the lungs --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it should 

6 just be "dose reconstructor." 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Or just "provide 

9 guidance." I'm okay with just "provides 

10 guidance." 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, on how to do 

12 whatever it is it does, yes. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: You can edit the 

14 first two, then, Wanda. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Right, I can. 

16 The rest of it reads all right to 

17 me. Does anyone else have any problem with 

18 what we have so far? Remember, you get one 

19 more chance to look at it. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: You're talking 

21 about just the first paragraph or the whole 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

355 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 document? 

2 CHAIR MUNN: No, I'm talking about 

3 the whole document. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I do. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think it gets 

7 complicated by introducing the second TIB. In 

8 fact, it's not clear from the resolution of 

9 the findings which of the two TIBs is going to 

10 be revised. 

11 I don't remember, but it seems to 

12 indicate that, okay, here's this TIB and it 

13 tells you to use these procedures in another 

14 TIB, and that other TIB doesn't follow the 

15 ICRP. So NIOSH has agreed to revise the TIB. 

16 Now are they going to revise the one that 

17 gives the wrong instructions? Because this 

18 one is only wrong because it refers to a 

19 different one that's wrong. Do you see what 

20 I'm saying? 

21 The method described in --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

356 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I do. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- 011 is the wrong 

3 method. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: And that makes this 

6 one wrong. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: So when NIOSH 

9 agrees with the findings and will make the 

10 corrections in the next revision of the TIB, 

11 is it this TIB or the other one? That's what 

12 I think is confusing. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is confusing. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I was hoping we 

15 could talk about this without even introducing 

16 the other TIB, but I'm not sure we can. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: I don't know how we 

18 can with the finding. 

19 DR. OSTROW: The OTIB-11 is 

20 correct, but it shouldn't be applied to 

21 special tritium compounds. The tritiated 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

357 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 water in the OTIB-11 is correct, so that 

2 doesn't have to be revised. It's just the 

3 method is applied in this case where you have 

4 special tritium compounds. It's the OTIB-66 

5 which needs revising, not the OTIB-11. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. That was the 

7 question I was asking. So is it necessary to 

8 bring the 11 into the picture in this 

9 discussion? In other words --

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, probably. But we 

11 need to get around -- we've brought it in up 

12 above because --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, suppose you 

14 simply said something along the lines, the 

15 document explains how intakes from --

16 actually, as it stands right now, it's 

17 treating everything as tritiated water, isn't 

18 that correct? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Essentially, yes. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I don't know if 

21 we want to take the time to wordsmith this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

358 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 here, but it seems to me that there might be a 

2 way simply to say that the existing guidance 

3 essentially treats everything as tritiated 

4 water. So that you're going to revise it; 

5 you're going to revise this document to handle 

6 these two other classes differently. Is that 

7 what's going to happen? Right? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe so. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: The other one is 

10 going to stay as it is? 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that correct? I 

13 mean I don't know. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: I believe so. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean the other 

16 one is tritiated -- tritium -- calculating 

17 missed dose estimates, maybe the other one 

18 should include everything. See, that's what's 

19 not clear. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I think I can 

21 make it clear, but you're right. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

359 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: This one is 

2 supposed to focus on special tritium 

3 compounds. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: And this is the one 

6 that should cover those. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: And OTIB-66 is what 

8 we're worried about. And so that's the one 

9 that's going to be changed, right? 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And so let me 

12 take a shot at that along with the rest of 

13 this. I think we are fine down to the point 

14 where we start talking about Finding 1. 

15 Finding 1 and subsequent references to "the 

16 TIB," I will make it clear which TIB we are 

17 talking about and try to clarify that better. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think if you can 

19 discuss this without even introducing the 

20 other one, we would be far better off, but 

21 maybe you can't. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

360 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Maybe. I guess it's 

2 kind of hard to do that, but let's say that I 

3 will give that one more shot and get that to 

4 you for the moment. 

5 And then we will get back to --

6 perhaps we can pick Joyce up now. I hate to 

7 keep her on the line if we don't have to. 

8 Joyce, are you still with us? 

9 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I'm sorry? 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Just wanted to make 

11 sure you were still there. 

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Oh, Joyce, yes, 

13 okay, I'm still here. Do you want to go back 

14 to 54 now? 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, if you're ready 

16 to address that, please. 

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. So let me 

18 tell you one thing. 

19 It's Item 17 and 19. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 

21 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I was reading now 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

361 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 Item 17, and I don't want to make you waste 

2 your time. I have to read carefully what was 

3 my last answer. I looked at it, and I still 

4 can't accept it, but I would prefer to look at 

5 it further and then come back. 

6 And on Item 19, the average of the 

7 four reactor types, which is the answer from 

8 my -- that this was discussed on Comment 14, 

9 and I think that it stays the same. I think 

10 that you can't average the four reactor types 

11 when you have such a big difference between 

12 the reactor types. So if one wants to use the 

13 maximum exposure, that's better than using the 

14 average. 

15 But I'll tell you the truth. I 

16 would prefer to come back in another meeting 

17 when I would study it before the meeting. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone have any 

19 objection to our carrying this to our next 

20 meeting so that Joyce can address it then? 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

362 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: All right, that's 

2 fine. We'll do that, Joyce. 

3 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. Thank you. 

4 Thank you so much. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: We will continue to 

6 carry OTIB-54 as an open item with you as the 

7 lead, and I will indicate a response expected 

8 on our next agenda. 

9 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Thank you. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

11 Now then our last of our four 

12 outstanding letters is PROC-80, correct? 

13 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve Ostrow. 

14 The same comment as in the other 

15 procedure, first paragraph, they have written 

16 down now "provides ORAU personnel with 

17 guidance." We should just change that to 

18 "provides guidance." 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Where is that? 

20 CHAIR MUNN: About the one, two, 

21 three, four, fifth line. Okay. Just after 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

363 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 "PROC-80," "provides guidance and 

2 instruction." 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: But you have the 

4 "its" at the end of the sentence, and that now 

5 has to change then. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Just "independent 

7 quality audits and assessments," period. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Assessments" of 

9 something. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: No, just "conduct 

11 independent quality audits and assessments." 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that could be 

13 of personnel or something. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: We could put "ORAU" 

15 there. We could change "its" to "ORAU." 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Well, but in the 

17 preceding sentence, we have said, "a system to 

18 oversee and maintain the overall quality of 

19 its work product and processes." 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Very good. 

21 Okay, you're good. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

364 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: We've identified that 

2 prior. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got it. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: And we continue on in 

5 that same vein. 

6 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

8 DR. OSTROW: I have a suggestion. 

9 I would get rid of the entire first sentence, 

10 the one that begins with "Oak Ridge Associated 

11 University Team." I would get rid of that 

12 entire sentence. And just for the next 

13 sentence, I would say, "the procedure being 

14 reviewed, conduct of quality -- provides 

15 personnel conducting quality assurance audits 

16 with guidance and instruction to administer 

17 and conduct independent quality audits and 

18 assessments," something to that effect. I 

19 would get rid of the whole first sentence. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, one could do 

21 that although I don't think we have any 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

365 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 objection to the first sentence the way it is, 

2 actually, Steve. 

3 DR. OSTROW: Oh, okay. I just 

4 thought it would make it just a little bit 

5 shorter. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: It clarifies; it gives 

7 a good feel for what this particular procedure 

8 is supposed to do. 

9 DR. OSTROW: Okay. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do we need the 

11 "QMS" in here? 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Not necessary --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's not repeated 

14 anywhere, is it? Do we need to repeat the 

15 "PROC-80?" It's in the title. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, but it never 

17 hurts to repeat it. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, your call. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Down under "Resolution 

20 of Findings," we refer to "SC&A," and we don't 

21 want to. The technical contractor's comments 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

366 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 would be included. 

2 DR. OSTROW: I think we're using 

3 the formulation "the Advisory Board technical 

4 contractor." 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Under the comments, 

7 can you clarify? These comments are two 

8 findings. How would you include the findings 

9 in revisions of the procedures? 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Well, where? Where 

11 again? 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Under "Resolution 

13 of Findings," the last sentence says, "NIOSH 

14 concluded by stating that it would consider 

15 whether" -- I guess you would say -- "the 

16 contractor's comments would be included in 

17 future revisions of the procedure." 

18 Well, there's two comments which 

19 are findings, but how do you include the 

20 findings in the procedure? 

21 MR. KATZ: It would be addressed, I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

367 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 guess is what was meant. 

2 DR. OSTROW: In front of the word 

3 "included," the findings won't be included, 

4 the --

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Addressed. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Addressed" would 

7 be better. 

8 DR. OSTROW: Yes. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't see how it 

10 resolves the finding because it says they're 

11 going to consider it, but they may decide that 

12 they're not going to address it. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the findings 

14 are in the form of suggestions --

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, okay. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- I think is what 

17 is stated. So they don't have the impetus of 

18 a regular finding, I don't think. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, instead of 

20 saying that there's a deficiency here, it was 

21 sort of like it would be more useful --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

368 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is a suggestion. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, or it would be 

3 helpful if. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it would be 

5 better if you did this. 

6 I believe it's reading okay. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think you 

8 need the colon in the first sentence. Just 

9 say, "NIOSH responded to the first finding by 

10 stating that this procedure is one of a number 

11 of implementing procedures under a QA system 

12 and by outlining the overall system 

13 described." It's still a funny sentence, 

14 isn't it? 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I didn't even 

16 see that colon. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: They "responded to 

18 the first finding by stating" duh, duh, duh, 

19 "and by outlining --

20 MR. MARSCHKE: There was a comma 

21 there instead of a colon. Do you want the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

369 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 comma back or do you want to just get rid of 

2 everything? 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe it's 

4 "responded to the first finding," A, by 

5 stating this and, B, by outlining something. 

6 It's structured kind of funny as it stands 

7 with a colon. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Let's do that. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Responded to the 

10 first finding as follows" dot, dot, or --

11 CHAIR MUNN: Let's do that, A 

12 and --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: A and B? 

14 CHAIR MUNN: -- and B. Okay. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: And, then, the last 

16 sentence in that paragraph, where you say 

17 "NIOSH concluded by stating," I think you can 

18 just say and you can leave out the "finally" 

19 and just say, "NIOSH also indicated that it 

20 would consider," or "NIOSH also stated." Just 

21 make it shorter. Or "NIOSH also agreed to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

370 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 consider addressing the contractor's comments 

2 in future revisions." I'm just looking for a 

3 way to make it more concise. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. "Finally, NIOSH 

5 also agreed to consider whether the Advisory 

6 Board technical contractor's comments would be 

7 addressed in future revisions of the 

8 procedure." 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that's good. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Everybody 

11 on the phone all right with those? 

12 (No response.) 

13 All right. I will do my best to 

14 get these updates to you fairly quickly, so 

15 that we will be prepared to get them where 

16 they need to be, which is in the hands of 

17 others. 

18 MR. KATZ: Wanda? 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

20 MR. KATZ: I would just suggest 

21 maybe you guys all want to -- this Work Group 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

371 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 wants to think about this process going 

2 forward. Because with 150, or whatever it is, 

3 I don't know what the large number is, but 

4 having this sort of intensive review will not 

5 be functional for going forward. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: No, it won't. 

7 MR. KATZ: So you may want to give 

8 some thought as to whether this creates a 

9 clear enough path because a number of the 

10 things you've ironed out --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think what 

12 we have done here are mainly editorial, and I 

13 think they see the pattern in terms of 

14 acronyms. I mean in terms of content, I think 

15 they have done a good job. 

16 MR. KATZ: Right. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't see why we, 

18 you know, can do much --

19 MR. KATZ: Right. So what I was 

20 going to say is, I mean, a number of these 

21 things you have addressed are sort of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

372 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 generically they can address going forward. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

3 MR. KATZ: But then individually, 

4 you find differences with this and that with 

5 each one. I think you really don't have the 

6 time going forward to worry about those little 

7 differences in how you would do it going 

8 forward. I think you'll need to decide that 

9 you're going to leave well enough alone on 

10 those, if you want to get these things 

11 produced in any kind of timely fashion and use 

12 your resources, husband your resources well. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: The other thing that 

14 we may want to consider is doing a simpler 

15 version of what we did with our first pilot 

16 project, which is have two or three of the 

17 Subcommittee members take a look at them and 

18 make some preliminary edits before they come 

19 to this group. That may be feasible. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or do they even 

21 need to come to us? That is what he is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

373 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 asking. 

2 MR. KATZ: I'm more getting at, 

3 really, if this Subcommittee -- you're talking 

4 about a lot of resources if you really intend 

5 to do this with each. I would suggest that 

6 you -- I mean once you feel like you're on 

7 track, that you just sort of let them go, and 

8 you may want to spot-check them at times, 

9 but --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or you simply 

11 distribute them and say, okay, here's this 

12 batch of, I don't know, 10 or 12 or 20, and 

13 you have until 10 days or something. And if 

14 we don't hear anything, then that's it. 

15 MR. KATZ: They stand as they are. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

17 DR. MAURO: This is John. It's 

18 interesting that we're going through this 

19 process because, normally, like when we 

20 deliver a Site Profile review, as soon as we 

21 deliver it, it goes up and then it becomes the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

374 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 subject for technical discussion, sort of 

2 SC&A's work product, not necessarily accepted 

3 by the Board or the Work Group, but it's 

4 SC&A's work product which becomes a draft. 

5 That's a working document. 

6 This is a different kind of product 

7 that we have never prepared before where when 

8 it finally goes up on the web, is this going 

9 to be a Board product? 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

11 DR. MAURO: As opposed to an SC&A 

12 work product? 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

14 MR. KATZ: We've spoken about this 

15 many times. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Very clear. 

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's why I 

18 raised the question. If it is going to be a 

19 Board product, then, Ted, that's why I'm 

20 bringing this up now. I guess there's no way 

21 to avoid having to go through this process. I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

375 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 think we have another batch of 15 ready, I 

2 believe. 

3 Steve, when I last spoke to you, I 

4 think you had 15 more that you were working 

5 on? 

6 DR. OSTROW: 

7 DR. MAURO: 

8 CHAIR MUNN: 

9 DR. MAURO: 

We sent a batch of 12. 

Twelve? Okay. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

10 MR. KATZ: I understand that these 

11 are -- I have that well in mind that these 

12 represent the Board. But, again, it doesn't 

13 mean that the Board has to write them just 

14 because they're representing the Board. 

15 And, again, I think there just 

16 simply aren't the resources for this process 

17 to operate on a very large number of these and 

18 this Subcommittee get anything else done. So 

19 I think you just have to -- I mean if the 

20 Subcommittee is generally happy with the 

21 substantive content of these and generally 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

376 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 happy at some point that these are 

2 communicating in a simple enough fashion that 

3 many people in the public can grasp them, then 

4 I think it needs to sort of let go of the 

5 item-by-item review. 

6 Except, I mean I think, Paul, your 

7 suggestion that Board Members can have a 

8 window of opportunity to comment and you can 

9 take those in, but -- that would be practical. 

10 But having the Subcommittee actually sitting 

11 around the table and editing these by 

12 committee is just really resource-intensive, 

13 and I'm not sure it's the best way to use this 

14 Subcommittee. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: It probably is not 

16 although my personal view is this Subcommittee 

17 needs to be the venue by which these materials 

18 are presented to the Board. And whether we 

19 look at them first or whether we send them as 

20 they are provided to the Board with a request 

21 for comments is something that we should, I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

377 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 think, make a decision. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Here's an 

3 alternative is to ask the Board to authorize 

4 us to approve them, and the approval can be 

5 similar to the way the Secretary gets approval 

6 for his actions on the SECs. And that is, if 

7 the Subcommittee Members don't object to 

8 anything, then they are adopted. 

9 You know, I think, let's say we had 

10 the next 12 and we distribute those to the 

11 five of us, if the Board authorizes that, and 

12 we each have a week or 10 days to respond, and 

13 if we have no comments, fine. If we have 

14 particular heartaches, we can always get on 

15 the phone. 

16 But I think you're quite right; we 

17 have to be efficient. These are only 

18 summaries of what's been done. So we don't 

19 want to spend more time on summarizing what 

20 we've done than the time we spent on doing the 

21 work to get there. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

378 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: On the original work, 

2 yes, which can happen. 

3 (Laughter.) 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Progress this month 

5 consisted of writing the progress reports. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: I like your 

7 suggestion, Paul. That seems feasible to me. 

8 And perhaps we can solidify that at our next 

9 meeting. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe even on the 

11 phone meeting. 

12 MR. KATZ: We have a teleconference 

13 next week. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We can talk 

15 about that. We have several things. 

16 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Our Subcommittee 

18 report will have a number of things. 

19 All right. The time is approaching 

20 five o'clock. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

379 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: I don't believe that 

2 we can address anything else that we have on 

3 our agenda other than our calendar, unless 

4 there is something outstanding on one of these 

5 things that someone is going to bleed if we 

6 don't address today. If so, speak now or 

7 forever hold your peace because we're going to 

8 start looking at calendars. 

9 MR. KATZ: No one has any blood 

10 left. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Let's look at the 

12 calendar. 

13 Well, both NIOSH and SC&A have a 

14 feeling for what we have on the agenda for 

15 them next time. So is our ordinary rule of 

16 thumb of six weeks or so reasonable for our 

17 next meeting? 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Six weeks is pretty 

19 fast. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Isn't there a 90-day 

21 --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

380 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve Ostrow. 

2 Look at the calendar. You have the 

3 Augusta meeting on February 23rd. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: We're not doing 

5 anything in February. I can guarantee you. 

6 I'll look at March. You know, I start looking 

7 at March personally. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that's more 

9 than six weeks. 

10 DR. MAURO: While you folks are 

11 looking for a date, one of the things I 

12 recall, when we attacked OTIB-70/54, those we 

13 picked and targeted because there were many 

14 comments. And by clearing them, we changed a 

15 lot. Because if I remember, we were about 80 

16 percent complete, and there were over 500-and17 something comments on the 100-or-so 

18 procedures. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

20 DR. MAURO: And we actually either 

21 closed or placed into abeyance about 80 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

381 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 percent of them with this. Assuming that 

2 going forward we end up closing out the 

3 various items that are before us on 70 and 54, 

4 we are probably over 90 percent. I would like 

5 to see what's sort of left. 

6 Steve, when the system is working 

7 where we can generate these kinds of 

8 information, queries on the database to see, 

9 okay, which ones are still open, which ones 

10 are still in progress, so that, again, we 

11 could plan for the next meeting. In addition 

12 to, let's say, closing out 70 and 54 as best 

13 we can, targeting specific ones that, let's 

14 say, both SC&A and NIOSH would say, yes, let's 

15 go after this one and one. Because I think we 

16 are asymptotically approaching completion. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Let's hope that that's 

18 the case. But when I look at the number of 

19 carryover items, even though they are not 

20 large, we continue those last one, two, three, 

21 four, five, six items that we have after our 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

382 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 four o'clock item on our agenda. 

2 DR. MAURO: Yes. Okay. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: They have not been 

4 touched for at least three meetings. 

5 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: I will move those up 

7 earlier in the day, yes, I certainly will, so 

8 that we will see those. And I will expect by 

9 our next meeting that we will have Joyce's 

10 input on 54 and NIOSH input on their items 

11 from 54 as well. 

12 So if we're going to approach those 

13 things in March, then I think is an 

14 appropriate time for us to have the discussion 

15 you're suggesting right now on next steps and 

16 whether there are next groupings or not. 

17 I'm very concerned about our loss 

18 of grouping ability from our database, 

19 primarily because that has given us a good 

20 handle on how to address the Secretary when we 

21 give our report. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

383 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. KATZ: It will get repaired. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it will get 

3 repaired. It will be fine. 

4 So I'm looking at the early part of 

5 March. 

6 MR. KATZ: Well, I would think not 

7 the early part because, I mean, Stu was just 

8 saying, make it too quick, and we're not going 

9 to be making progress. So we'll be meeting 

10 but not usefully. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: But that's two months 

12 from now. 

13 MR. KATZ: Well, six weeks, even 

14 six weeks, takes you, right --

15 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we don't want to 

16 meet until after Augusta, well after Augusta. 

17 MR. KATZ: Right. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: So if we met the 

19 second week after Augusta --

20 MR. KATZ: I mean Augusta week is 

21 useless. There's no progress being made 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

384 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 during Augusta. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: No, that's true. 

3 MR. KATZ: So that's not --

4 CHAIR MUNN: True. The Dose 

5 Reconstruction Subcommittee meets on the 14th. 

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, and TBD-6001 meets 

7 on the 15th. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: I thought TBD-6001 no 

9 longer existed. 

10 MR. KATZ: No, there's still a Work 

11 Group. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, they're still 

13 meeting. 

14 MR. KATZ: They're still dealing 

15 with the -- nice one, Wanda. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Sorry. 

17 (Laughter.) 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just going to 

19 rename them, right? 

20 MR. KATZ: No, I think we like the 

21 name. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

385 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 (Laughter.) 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Can we stand to have 

3 three that week or not? Does that kill 

4 everybody? 

5 MR. KATZ: Well, you know, Mark, 

6 are you still on the line? 

7 (No response.) 

8 I think that tends to be hard for 

9 Mark, in particular, who has a lot of other 

10 duties. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: He has a day job? 

12 MR. KATZ: He has a day job --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Darn. 

14 MR. KATZ: -- which is more than a 

15 day job by itself. And he, I think, is on 

16 6001 as well. So I think getting him for 

17 three days in one week would be really a 

18 stretch. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: So that's pushing us 

20 to the third week in March, no matter what, 

21 right? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

386 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. KATZ: Yes. So the week of the 

2 21st seems like -- how is that for folks? 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Choose a day. 

5 MR. KATZ: What day of the week 

6 works? Middle of the week, so that there's 

7 no --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think 

9 Friday works for me, but --

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, but how about the 

11 23rd, Wednesday? 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Or the 22nd, Tuesday. 

13 MR. KATZ: Or the 22nd. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Any other day other 

15 than Friday. 

16 MR. KATZ: Is the 22nd good for --

17 CHAIR MUNN: The 22nd is good? 

18 MR. KATZ: Mike, are you still with 

19 us? 

20 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, the 22nd is 

21 open. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

387 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. So let's pen in 

2 the 22nd, and I don't know whether that works 

3 for Mark. Okay, March 22nd. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Dick had said he was 

5 fairly sure he would be free during that 

6 segment of time. 

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. Good. Yes, then 

8 we have Dick. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: So I will notify him 

10 immediately by email. 

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, Mark and Dick. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

13 MR. KATZ: You'll probably catch 

14 Dick at the airport. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: We'll do that as soon 

16 as we leave here. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Starting time? Nine 

18 o'clock? 

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Nine o'clock. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

388 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 CHAIR MUNN: Anything else for the 

2 good of the order? 

3 (No response.) 

4 And on the stroke of five o'clock, 

5 we are adjourned. 

6 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everyone, for 

7 hanging with us on the line. 

8 (Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the 

9 proceedings in the above-entitled matter were 

10 adjourned.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com